LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. Divesh Bhutani & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 737Decided 21 Jul 2022
Civil Appeal No. 10294 of 2013
A.M. Khanwilkar · Abhay S. Oka · C.T. Ravikumar · J.B. Pardiwala as the third judge

Background

In three villages (Anangpur, Ankhir and Mewla Maharajpur) in Faridabad, Haryana, the government had issued special orders in 1992 under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act restricting activity on certain lands. Landowners, including operators of marriage halls and a restaurant, built and ran commercial structures on this land, and the National Green Tribunal restrained non-forest activity there, treating the land as "forest land" under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The landowners appealed, and connected writ petitions were also filed challenging the 1992 orders and a 2021 municipal notice (following Supreme Court orders in the related Khori Gaon case) directing removal of illegal structures on this land.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that land covered by such special orders under Section 4 of the 1900 Act carries "all the trappings of forest land" within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act, so no non-forest use of that land is permissible without prior approval of the Central Government, and this status does not change even if the underlying state order is later cancelled, amended or expires, because Section 2 of the central Forest Act overrides other state laws. The Court further held that a 2019 Haryana amendment attempting to narrow the scope of such restrictions would not alter this forest status, since it would otherwise be repugnant to the central Act. It directed that all illegal structures erected without Central Government approval since 25 October 1980 be removed and the land restored (with reforestation), but required affected persons be given a hearing first, with the process to conclude within three months, and disposed of all the connected appeals and writ petitions on these terms.

Lesson Learnt

Once land has taken on the character of "forest" for purposes of the Forest (Conservation) Act, that status is not undone merely because a state government cancels, amends or lets lapse the local order that originally restricted it: any change of use for such land still requires the Central Government's prior approval, and unauthorised commercial construction on it remains liable to be removed even years later.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Tax & Customs Law

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld treatment of this subsidy as a taxable revenue receipt. It applied the purpose test: the scheme had to be read as a whole to determine whether the assistance supported capital investment or the running of an established business. Here, payment tracked actual electricity charges incurred in production and was not earmarked for plant, machinery, factory construction or repayment of capital borrowing. The scheme's broad aim of industrial development did not override those operative features, and payment after production began was relevant to the overall scheme rather than decisive by itself.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/S Kuku Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

The Court found the petitioner's non-disclosure of the earlier adjudication order was material, since the core premise of the petition (indefinite non-finalisation) no longer held true once formal orders existed. It held the petitioner now had an effective alternate remedy, a statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, to raise all its arguments, including about delay, and declined to keep the writ petition pending just because a related Supreme Court case on delay in adjudication was ongoing. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable in its present form, with liberty to appeal.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/s Aparna Collection vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court rejected the argument that limitation under Section 74(2) must be measured from the date on Form GST DRC-01, because DRC-01 is only a summary of the show cause notice. On Section 74(10), the Court held that the statute requires the order, not the DRC-07, to be issued within the prescribed period, and that DRC-07 is a summary uploaded later under Rule 142. Because the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107, and the questions raised needed factual findings, the Court declined to decide the merits in writ jurisdiction. The petitions were disposed of, with liberty to appeal under Section 107 and to raise all contentions there, including limitation and exclusion of the time spent in these proceedings.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Others v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Another

The Supreme Court dismissed the authorities' appeals and upheld the classification accepted by the High Court. It held that, under the statutory entries at issue, classification depended on the goods' form when sold, rather than what customers might later prepare with them. The beverage entry grouped beverages with syrups, cordials, juices and other liquid preparations, and did not expressly include powders used to make drinks. Packaging instructions and general tests of popular meaning or function could not expand that clear statutory description. Because the products did not fit the specific beverage entry, they belonged in the residual category; precedents involving differently worded entries or liquid products did not change that result.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Zoom Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1) & Anr.

The Court dismissed the writ petition. Except for the assessment year, the facts were identical to the earlier case, and the Court held that judicial discipline required it to follow the Coordinate Bench's decision in the petitioner's own case. The Court did not accept the petitioner's reliance on an interim order in another company's case, and noted that the earlier judgment in the petitioner's own case was final. The earlier judgment also left it to the Assessing Officer to examine, after the notice is answered, whether the Rs 82 lakh amount is a spurious transaction.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Ms Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner CGST Delhi South & Ors.

The High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the Commissioner could validly invoke Section 54(11), because an anti-evasion investigation was already underway when the impugned order was passed and the Commissioner had formed an opinion of fraud or malfeasance based on contemporaneous material. The Court held that the power to withhold refund is distinct from the adjudication and appellate scheme under Sections 73, 74 and 107, and that the absence of a statutory appeal does not bar judicial review. However, an appeal had already been filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), so the Court declined to decide disputed factual questions and left all issues open before the GSTAT.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case