Abuse of state power in land acquisition

A weekly selection of key court orders

The Andhra Pradesh government dragged a landowner to several courts for nearly two decades to defeat his claim of Rs 50,000 in a 1987 land acquisition case. The landowner died meanwhile, and the successors did not come to the Supreme Court when the state's appeal reached the Supreme Court last month. However, the court imposed cost on the state and asked it to settle all amounts. It criticised the government for abuse of legal process. In the judgment, Land Acquisition Officer vs Ravi Santosh, the court remarked: In our considered opinion, the state unnecessarily pursued this petty matter to this court, which does not involve any arguable point either on facts or in law nor it involves any point of public importance, nor it involves any substantial money claim. What was involved was only the calculation of payment of interest. Therefore, it was a sheer abuse of process by the state which we do not approve. It is unfortunate that a genuine claim of the land owner was not satisfied by the state for such a long time.

Loan recovery of an extreme kind
In loan recovery proceedings, the Kerala government auctioned the property of a person to itself for Rs 1, apparently in full and final settlement of dues from him. He appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the whole auction proceedings were illegal since there was no proper enquiry on its market value. In this case, Sooraj Kumar vs Tehsildar, the court settled the dispute by allowing the owner of the property to avail of an amnesty scheme. If the dues are paid according to it, the auction result shall be cancelled and property shall be restored to him.

Reopening of assessment quashed

Assessment of central sales tax cannot be reopened because one assessment officer held one way and a succeeding officer took a different view. In this judgment of the Supreme Court, Ravi Prakash Refineries vs State of Karnataka, the deputy commissioner of commerce taxes imposed a levy of two per cent, accepting the declaration regarding inter-state sales of sunflower de-oiled cakes. After the order, another assessment officer came who felt that the earlier officer was wrong and there was escapement of tax which should have been four per cent. The firm called in question the latter view, moving the Karanataka Appellate Tribunal. It held that the change of opinion was no ground for reopening the assessment. The company moved the high court against the rate of levy and finally appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that, we have no iota of doubt that there should not have been re-opening of the assessment. The assesse shall reap the benefit of the initial assessment as it could not have been reopened.

Oil companies' appeals dismissed
The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of appeals moved by Indo-Burma Petroleum Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum, Indian Oil and BPCL challenging the notice for penalty and claiming VAT benefits under a notification. The prices of petrol and HSD were increased in June 2006 but were rolled back in two stages. The companies filed returns claiming benefits under the notification which were denied because according to the authorities the companies had not taken into consideration the reduction in prices. The companies moved the appellate body and the high court without success. The Supreme Court also rejected their contention stating that the idea was to grant benefit only in respect of that element of VAT respecting increase in rates and not beyond. If the increase is withdrawn, the benefit also ceased.

For tax levy, excavators are like motor vehicles
The Supreme Court has ruled that excavators belonging to the Western Coalfields would fall within the meaning of the definition of 'motor vehicles' in the Motor Vehicles Act. Dismissing the appeal of the firm, the judgment in the case, Western Coalfields vs State of Maharashtra, the court stated that as a consequence, the firm must register excavators as motor vehicles under the Act, pay tax according to it. There was a conflict of opinion on this question as some judgments had apparently taken different views. Settling the matter by the larger Bench, this judgment stated that the confusion arose because of reading another judgment in which excise on tyres of motor vehicles was discussed. However, that ruling has no application in this case and excavators are included in motor vehicles, the court clarified.

Metal Box told to vacate premises
The Delhi High Court in the case, Metal Box vs TK Sehgal & Sons, narrated the travails of the owner of the premises let out to the company and his efforts to get back the prime property situated on Parliament Street in the capital since 1991. The company, having plenty of resources of engaging counsel it has embroiled a poor individual or a Hindu Undivided Family in totally unwarranted litigation so as to ensure that he is not able to retrieve the possession of the premises in question, the court remarked after going through record of the litigation. The company was told to move out in 2012, but it engaged in frivolous objections to wriggle out of the order; the judgment said, adding that the various objections raised since then are only a ploy to perpetuate possession of the premises endlessly. All these application are dismissed and the company is given three months to vacate the premises.

Injunction against sports shoe brand
Youngsters who buy sports shoes from a store are not likely to check the logos and labels printed inside but generally go by the trade dress. If the products are similar the consumers are likely to be confused, the Delhi High Court remarked while granting an injunction in favour of Skechers USA Inc, against Indian firm Pure Play Sports. The US corporation alleged that the Indian firm was manufacturing and selling exact replicas of its highly valued GOwalk series of shoes, violating its trade mark and intellectual property rights. The court said at first look the allegation appeared to be true. In its judgment, it reproduced photographs of the products in colour from various angles (a new trend in IPR decisions, enabled by web technology) and said that the 'selling point' of these shoes is their catchy colour combinations and texture combinations, coupled with their cuts and stitching styles. It is these features that would catch the attention of the consumers who would be misled in their choice.