nThe state government granted an eight-year sales tax exemption to certain newly set-up industrial units. TISCO set up a cold roll product (CRP) unit in the premises where hot roll product (HRP) units were still existing. However, sales tax was imposed on the ground that HRP and CRP were the same products as they occurred in the same entry in the statute. The Supreme Court held that the company had invested around Rs 2,000 crore to set up the new unit on the basis of the state?s promise. The manufacturing processes of the two products are entirely different. Just because the products occur in the same entry does not mean they are the same (Tata Iron and Steel Company vs State of Jharkhand).

In a quarrel arising over cleaning drainage, the five accused entered the victim?s house and beat her up. They were charged under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 34. Acquitting the accused, the high court held that in order to prove common intention the prosecution must establish the attack was pre-conceived. However, the Supreme Court held that where the five had barged into the house and beat her up, it is clear that there was common intention (State of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand).

A bus conductor was found collecting money from passengers and not issuing tickets. He admitted his guilt and prayed for leniency. Reference was made to the industrial tribunal under the Industrial Dispute Act for approval of the order of removal. The tribunal rejected the order holding that the admission was of no consequence. It further held that the passenger?s statement ? who testified before the officer ? was in the nature of hearsay evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view and held that admission is the best evidence. The person making an admission can explain why the statement should not be acted upon. The case was remanded back for consideration on its own merits (Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shyam Lal).

SOLON