SC orders demolition of Patna building

The Supreme Court has ordered demolition of a multi-storyed residential building in Patna for gross violations of the sanctioned plan. The deviations are "shocking and can be undertaken only by such person who considers himself to be law unto himself," the court stated. One of the deviations is that against the sanction for 24 flats in six floors at the rate of four flats per floor, nine floors have been constructed with six flats an each floor. All flat owners shall vacate the building in six weeks and they will get compensation at the rate of Rs 7,000 per sq ft. The plea for compounding the offence was rejected and those who resist the order shall be forcefully evicted, the court stated in the case, Babita Badasaria vs Patna Municipal Corporation. The original order of demolition was passed in July 2014. But, the residents moved several applications with proposals to avoid the crisis. However, the court rejected all of them stating that "we do not find any reason to change our mind and allow to keep this illegal construction which is contrary to law". The court appointed a commissioner to determine the claims of compensation and other modalities. It directed the demolition within four months and report compliance to it.

Project delay a factor in fixing power tariff

Read more from our special coverage on "BRIEF CASE"

• Sebi Act lacks clarity, says Supreme Court

Those who draw power cannot be made liable to pay when there is a delay in installing switchgear, protection system and meters on the part of the producer. The Supreme Court stated so while dismissing the appeal case, Power Grid Corporation vs Punjab Power Corporation. The Grid Corporation is a transmission licencee of the Barh-Balia transmission unit in Bihar, built by NTPC. The Punjab corporation was a beneficiary. They entered into a power supply agreement for providing transmission lines. NTPC was supposed to provide switchgear and other equipment. The Grid Corporation claimed that it had completed its work and wanted the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission to determine the tariff. The Punjab corporation, then, raised an objection that the line was not operational. The commission ruled that the tariff was payable. The Punjab corporation moved the tribunal, which accepted its objection. On the Grid Corporation's appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the essential equipment was not installed by NTPC though the Grid Corporation had completed its work. Though it had suffered due to the delay of NTPC, the beneficiaries like the Punjab corporation cannot be made liable for the delay as the supply lines had not started at the relevant time.

Interest on excise refund

The Supreme Court has ruled that if there is a delay in the refund of excise duty, the assessee firm is entitled to interest on the amount The refund claim should be decided within three months from the date of the application. After that, interest shall be paid according to Section 11BB of the Central Excise Tariff Act, the court stated while dismissing the appeal of the revenue authorities in the case, Union of India vs Hamdard Laboratories. The company was engaged in the manufacture and sale of various items including Rooh Afza, a sweetened non-alcoholic beverage. There was long litigation over the question whether it was a beverage or a concentrate and how it should be classified for purposes of excise duty. The firm won the case in the Allahabad High Court, which ruled that it is a non-alcoholic beverage. The Supreme Court upheld it. The firm then applied for refund. It was given without interest; thus starting another round of litigation in the high court and the Supreme Court. The apex court ruled that there was a delay in the grant of refund and, therefore, the firm was entitled to interest on it.

Fine on ESI defaulters mandatory

"The object of creating an offence and penalty under the Employees' State Insurance Act is clearly to create deterrence against violation of provisions of the Act, which are beneficial for the employees. Non-payment of contributions is an economic offence and, therefore, the legislature has not only fixed a minimum term of imprisonment but also a fixed amount of fine of Rs 5,000," the Supreme Court stated in its judgment, ESI vs AK Abdul. In this case, the defaulters were imprisoned till the rising of the court by the special court of economic offences in Bengaluru and a fine of Rs 1,000 was imposed. According to the Act, the minimum jail term of six months can be reduced for adequate reason. But the corporation appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the amount could not be reduced. The court accepted the argument of the corporation.

Threats to collect tax is illegal

The Delhi High Court last week told the Commissioner of Trade Tax to ensure its officers do not collect cheques from business premises on the ground of discrepancy in the levy and threatening to seal the establishment. The court passed the order because there have been such instances recently and the circular issued by the authorities in this context did not clearly bar such practice by the officers. In this case, Gullu's vs Commissioner, the Additional Value Added Tax officer visited the business premises and told the proprietor that the levy on the meat sold was higher than paid by her and unless Rs 12 lakh was paid by cheque on the spot, the premises would be sealed. The cheque was handed over under the threat. Later, she moved the commissioner alleging that what happened was illegal. The commissioner reviewed the computation and demanded Rs 28 lakh on the spot or else the establishment would be sealed. She then paid Rs 5 lakh. She moved the high court for return of the cheque and to prevent further coercive action. The cheque was then returned. The high court asked the authorities to issue fresh instructions to prevent recurrence of such incidents and make sure that "even where a dealer comes forward 'voluntarily' to deposit such cheque or cash towards tax dues at the time of such survey or inspection or sealing, the officers will decline to receive such cheque or cash and advise the dealer to make the payment only in the permitted modes."

Passport service under consumer law

The National Consumer Commission ruled last week that if there is any unjustified delay in the issue of passport, after the passport officer decides to issue one, it will be "deficiency in service" entitling the aggrieved person to claim compensation. In its judgment in the case, Passport Officer vs Richa Bhandari, the commission ruled that an applicant for a passport was a 'consumer' under law as far as the outsourced services are concerned.