The Supreme Court last week set aside the ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and quashed the levy of anti-dumping duty imposed under a notification dated April 27, 2005. The order was passed in the appeal case, Automative Tyre Manufacturers Association vs Designated Authority (DA). The association represented domestic tyre manufacturing units, who import nylon tyre cord fabric from various countries, including China, as one of their basic raw materials for manufacture of tyres. The tribunal had dismissed the appeals, preferred by the association, Apollo Tyres, J.K. Tyres and Ningbo Nylon of China and confirmed the levy of anti-dumping duty in terms of the notification. It held that taxing is a legislative function and therefore, the DA need not hear the parties before taking action. Overruling this view, the Supreme Court declared that the order passed by the DA “offended the basic principle of natural justice. Therefore, the notification having been issued on the basis of the findings of the DA, who failed to follow the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained.”
‘Arbitrator bound to give reasons for award, or it becomes invalid’
The Supreme Court held last week that an arbitrator is bound to give detailed reasons for his award and if he does not do so, the award will be invalid. In this case, State of Uttar Pradesh vs Combined Chemicals Co Ltd, the company agreed to supply zinc sulphate to the state agricultural department. However, when the government received a lower offer, it did not carry forward with the arrangement with Combined Chemicals. It led to litigation and arbitration. The state did not appear before the arbitrator. The latter then gave an award against the state. The government challenged it in the Allahabad high court which dismissed its objections. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the arbitrator passed an award without assigning any reason whatsoever and without even recording a finding that the company suffered losses. The award was made in a ‘casual’ manner. Therefore, the court ordered a fresh arbitration.
Successor company gets rights to loan
The Supreme Court stated last week that the debt recovery proceedings of Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) may be continued against a defaulting company by its successor, Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd (IIBIL). The new institution was brought into being by the Industrial Reconstruction Bank (Repeal) Act in 1997. In this case, IIBIL vs Jain Cables Ltd, a loan was granted to the company. The latter did not meet the loan obligations and therefore, the creditor moved the Rajasthan high court. It held that the petition was not maintainable because it was moved under the repealed law. IIBIL therefore appealed to the Supreme Court. It overruled the high court. It stated that the provisions of the 1997 Act made it clear that any cause of action which arose before 1997 and pursued by IRBI could be continued and enforced by IIBIL. The case could be pursued as if the 1997 Act had not been enacted, the judgement said.
Differing views of high courts sortedout by apex court
The Supreme Court last week settled different views expressed by the Bombay and Karnataka high courts and allowed the appeals of the Commissioner of Income Tax, ruling that interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB. In two appeals by the commissioner, against rulings in favour of Rolta India Ltd and Export Credit Guarantee Corporation, the Supreme Court delivered judgement in favour of the revenue department on the issue which arose, namely, interest under Section 234B can be charged on the tax calculated on book profits under Section 115JA. In other words, advance tax was payable on book profits under Section 115JA. Appeals by Nahar Exports and Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd were dismissed.
Raid on sister concern not ground for terminating contract
An Enforcement Directorate raid on a sister concern connected with the Commonwealth Games scam is not a ground to terminate a contract, a division bench of the Delhi high court has declared. The Apparel Export Promotion Council had invited tenders and offered the contract for the February 2011 textile fair to an events management company, Meroform (India) Ltd. Later there was a telecast in private channels that its sister company was raided in scam investigation. Citing this telecast, the council declined to give the contract to the events management company, though large amounts were spent by it. It moved the high court challenging the termination of the contract.
The court stated that the council’s decision was illegal. However, it did not grant any monetary relief to the affected company and pointed out that the remedy lay in the civil court.