Dangerous substances can now be conveyed from CRZs

The Supreme Court stated last week that hazardous substances could be conveyed from coastal regulation zones (CRZ) to industrial units, though an amendment to the CRZ rules totally prohibited any such movement. The 1997 amendment to a central government notification of 1991 on carrying hazardous substances from ports to the industrial units was not “happily worded”, the court said. In order to make the rule workable, the court re-interpreted the vague phrases to enable industries to carry imported hazardous substances from ports to their factories.
The court did so while dismissing environmental objections to a Rs 600 crore plant in the appeal case, M. Nizamudeen vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Several public interest petitions were filed by individuals in the Madras high court and the Supreme Court against the chemical plant. The Supreme Court rejected all objections based on the CRZ rules and allowed the plant to continue production. The judgment did not deal with the plea of Chemplast company that the cases were instigated by its rival, Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Limited.
IT liability on royalty paid for software duplication
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax in a batch of appeals from Gujarat, raising the question of tax liability in relation to payment of royalty by Indian companies to foreign ones for duplicating software in India and supplying them to the end-users. In one typical case, Mastek Ltd claimed deduction on the royalty payment under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. It argued that for each copy duplicated and sold to customers in India (including Reliance Industries and Air India), it had paid royalty to the US corporation based on its sale value and, thus, such payment towards royalty formed part of the expenditure incurred by it in making the sales.
The assessing officer did not agree with it and asserted that only one-sixth of the payment was deductible under Section 35A. When the company appealed, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate tribunal accepted the company’s view. The Gujarat high court did not re-examine the issue. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the high court as “we are of the view that an in-depth exercise needs to be carried out to understand the actual process undertaken by the company in the light of the contract/arrangement with the US corporation.”
Credit card holder in the clear
A credit card holder who has not used his card could still move a consumer forum if there is deficiency in service of the bank which issued the card. The West Bengal State Consumer Commission said so last week in the case, Abhijit Sarkar vs SBI Cards and Payments Services (P) Ltd. The credit card holder had not used the card but substantial amounts were debited by State Bank of India from his account due to operations of miscreants.
When he moved the district consumer forum, it dismissed the complaint observing that since he had not used the card, he was not a consumer according to the Consumer Protection Act. It also stated that he had filed a first information report with the police regarding the transactions and therefore he could not move the consumer forum. He appealed to the state commission, which took a view favourable to him on both counts. It stated that filing of an FIR would not debar the person from moving the consumer forum. Moreover, even if he had not used his card, he would still be a consumer in the eye of the law.