Latest news with #Manmohan
The Hindu
21-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
HCs not custodian of revenue department, says SC; stays Bombay HC order
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
Time of India
21-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
‘High Courts not custodian of revenue': SC stays Bombay HC order blocking Rs 256 crore refund to firm
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department , the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. Live Events The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act , 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
NDTV
20-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking 27% OBC Quota Implementation In Madhya Pradesh
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to urgently list a petition seeking implementation of 27% reservation quota for Other Backward Classes or OBC communities in Madhya Pradesh. A partial working day bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan agreed to hear next week the plea mentioned in court today. The petition moved by members of the OBC community in the state seeks implementation of a law passed by the legislative assembly of Madhya Pradesh in 2019, which increased the OBC quota from 14% to 27%. The plea states the state government has been denying benefit of increased quota for the OBCs based on the stay given to an MBBS student for a postgraduate medical entrance test by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Earlier, the Congress had accused the BJP-led Madhya Pradesh government of deliberately not implementing the law (which increased OBC quota from 14 to 27%) passed by the Congress government in 2019, citing "legal hurdle". An ordinance was brought by the erstwhile Congress government on March 8, 2019, seeking to increase the OBC quota in jobs and admissions in educational institutions to 27 per cent from 14 per cent. However, the same was challenged by the MBBS student. The Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed the implementation of the ordinance for the entrance test of the postgraduate medical exam. However, in July 2019, the state assembly passed legislation to replace the ordinance. The petition moved by members of OBC community in the state, claims that despite Madhya Pradesh having 50% OBC population, the reservation quota remains only 14%. The plea further says that Madhya Pradesh government arbitrarily failed to implement the Act to extend the benefit of the said amendment in nearly all recruitment processes. What Happened Before 2019 Before 2019, Madhya Pradesh had reservation of 14 per cent for the OBC, 20 per cent for ST, and 16 per cent for SC, totalling 50 per cent. The enhanced OBC quota has raised total reservation to 63 per cent, breaching the 50 per cent quota ceiling. On March 19, 2019, the High Court stayed the increased 13 per cent more OBC reservation, which led to the suspension of many recruitment processes. Later, a formula which included 87 per cent existing reservations plus 13 per cent reserved was introduced to continue exams while holding the disputed 13 per cent seats separately until a final verdict. In 2024, all pending petitions regarding OBC reservation hike (around 70 in total) were transferred from the High Court to the Supreme Court. Till the final decision is made, recruitments are continuing based on the 87:13 formula. This law was neither challenged in any court nor was any stay granted by the court on its implementation, the plea argues. "It is respectfully submitted that the said legislation has neither been struck down nor declared unconstitutional by any court of law. In fact, no interim order has been passed by this court or High Court of Madhya Pradesh for restraining the enforcement of the law," states the petition. The plea further states that the enforcement of the law is restrained only on the basis of legal opinion of the office of Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh by the executive and pending litigation before court. However, the plea argues that there is a presumption of constitutionality in laws passed by the state assembly, and such laws must be implemented even if they are facing challenges in court.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC orders K'taka to take action against disrupters of 'Thug Life' release
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan recorded the state government's assurance that it would provide adequate security to the theaters if the movie was screened in the state Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Karnataka government to take action against those obstructing the screening of Kamal Haasan starrer "Thug Life" in the state. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan recorded the state government's assurance that it would provide adequate security to the theaters if the movie was screened in the state. The bench said it did not want a situation to crop up in which someone's sentiment was hurt by utterances and the movie was stalled from releasing, or a standup show was cancelled or an artist was stopped from reciting a poem. As a result, the bench asked the state government to contain any "divisive element" posing as a threat to the film's release. The top court closed the PIL after the state government's assurance, observing no guidelines or directions were required to be given. On June 17, the top court came down heavily on the Karnataka government after the actor's movie was not screened in theatres in the state, and observed that mob and vigilantes cannot be allowed to take over streets. The top court was hearing a plea of one M Mahesh Reddy, who challenged the film's non screening in Karnataka. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
