List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan of the Supreme Court decided Gopal Pathak v. Nitin alias Pappu & Anr. (2026). The Court held that under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), a court must compare a disputed signature or writing and reach its own conclusion. It cannot call for expert evidence routinely merely because it is not an expert. The Court set aside the High Court's order directing a handwriting expert's examination and restored the trial court's order. 

What was the Background of Gopal Pathak v. Nitin alias Pappu & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute concerned the genuineness of a Will, with the signatures on it being questioned. 
• The respondent filed an application under Section 39 of the BSA seeking the opinion of a handwriting expert. 
• The trial court declined the request to call for expert evidence. 
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) reversed the trial court's decision. It allowed the application, holding that expert evidence was "essential" to determine the genuineness of the Will since the court itself is not an expert. 
• The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court. He argued that:  
  • The power to call for expert evidence cannot be used routinely when the court can itself compare signatures under Section 72 of the BSA. 
  • The respondent had admitted in his Section 39 application that his father was a tenant, so he could not simultaneously dispute the genuineness of the Will by questioning the signatures. 
• The respondent defended the High Court's order, relying on Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008). He contended that where handwriting, signature or finger impression is disputed, a finding by the court alone would be hazardous and risky, so the matter should go to an expert. 
• The question before the Court was whether expert opinion is essential in every case involving a disputed signature. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the court's duty to compare: 

• It is the duty of the court to compare the signature or writing and come to its own conclusion. 
• The court cannot avoid this duty by stating that it is not an expert. 
• The evidence of an expert is only an opinion and is not binding on the court. 

On calling for expert evidence: 

• It is impermissible to send every case involving a disputed handwriting, signature or finger impression for expert examination when the court can compare it and decide. 
• Expert evidence cannot be called for routinely. 
• The court has full discretion to seek expert opinion where it has any doubt, or where the writing or impression is smudgy, vague or very light. 

On the High Court's finding: 

• The High Court's finding that expert opinion under Section 39 of the BSA was essential for determining the genuineness of the Will was untenable in law. 
• The comparison of signatures could have been done by the court itself under Section 72 of the BSA. 

On reliance on Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008): 

• The decision cannot be read to mean that it is essential to examine an expert witness in every case involving a disputed handwriting, signature or finger impression. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order calling for a handwriting expert, and restored the trial court's order declining the request for expert evidence.

What is Section 72 of the BSA? 

About: 

• Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the comparison of a signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. 
• It corresponds to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
• It empowers the court itself to compare disputed writing with admitted or proved specimens, without depending on an expert. 

Provisions: 

• Section 72(1): To ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal belongs to the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to be that person's may be compared with the one to be proved. This is permitted even if the admitted specimen has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. 
• Section 72(2): The court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures, so that the court can compare them with words or figures alleged to have been written by that person. 
• Section 72(3): The section applies, with necessary modifications, to finger impressions as well. 

Interplay with Section 39 of the BSA: 

• Section 39 of the BSA (corresponding to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) makes the opinion of experts relevant, including on questions of identity of handwriting and finger impressions. 
• Expert opinion under Section 39 is only a relevant fact and an aid to the court. It is not conclusive or binding. 
• Section 72 places the primary responsibility of comparison on the court. Recourse to Section 39 is discretionary and is meant for cases where the court has genuine doubt or the material is unclear. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Arun Palli of the Supreme Court decided Addl. Commr. Commercial Tax & Ors. v. Cadila Health Care Ltd & Anr. (2026). The Court held that the form in which goods exist at the time of sale determines their tax classification, and their later use by consumers cannot change it. It ruled that powder and biscuit products could not be taxed as beverages and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 

What was the Background of Addl. Commr. Commercial Tax v. Cadila Health Care Ltd (2026) Case? 

• The respondent, Cadila Health Care Ltd, sold two products, "GRD Powder" and "GRD Mix", across the counter in the form of powder and biscuits. 
• The dispute related to the Assessment Year 1997-1998. 
• The Revenue treated the products as beverages, on the ground that their end use was a liquid intake by the consumer, regardless of their original form. 
• The Revenue sought to classify them as "Non-Alcoholic Drinks and Beverages" under Entry 20(ii), Part IV, Schedule II of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994, attracting tax at 10%. 
• The respondent contended that the goods, being sold as powder and biscuits, fell under the residuary entry and were taxable at 8%. 
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the classification under the residuary entry of Schedule II, subjecting the goods to tax at 8%. 
• The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court. 
• The question before the Court was whether goods should be classified by their end use (being mixed with milk or water to make a drink) or by their form at the time of sale. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the taxable event and basis of classification: 

• The taxable event is the act of supply. 
• The incidence of tax is determined by the nature of the goods in the form in which they are sold. 
• Tax authorities must levy tax based on the form of the goods at the time of sale and look at what is supplied, not at its end use. 
• A consumer's subsequent use of the goods cannot alter their classification so as to attract a higher rate of tax. 

On the illustration given by the Court: 

• A protein powder sold as a powder would attract the tax applicable to powders. 
• A ready-to-drink beverage, such as bottled cold coffee or a packaged protein shake, would attract the tax applicable to beverages. 

On the meaning of "beverages" in the entry: 

• The items listed alongside "beverages" in the entry, namely syrups, cordials, distilled juices, ark and essences, all denote liquids or liquid preparations. 
• The common thread among them is that they are liquid substances capable of being bottled, stored and consumed or used in liquid form. 
• The word "beverages" cannot be read in isolation to cover products of a fundamentally different physical form. 

On the word "including" in a taxing entry: 

• The word "including" cannot automatically be treated as an all-encompassing expression covering every product remotely connected with beverages. 

On reliance on Pioma Industries v. State of Kerala (2008): 

• That case concerned Rasna, and the relevant entry contained an explanation expressly including powders, tablets and concentrates used to prepare non-alcoholic drinks. 
• This showed that the legislature knew how to expressly include powders within the category of beverages, but had not used such language in the present entry. 

On reliance on Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. (2026): 

• The sharbat in that case existed in liquid form, unlike the powder and biscuit products before the Court, so the decision was distinguishable. 

Conclusion 

• The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment classifying GRD Powder and GRD Mix under the residuary entry, taxable at 8%.

What are the Principles of Classification of Goods under Taxing Statutes? 

About: 

• Classification determines which entry of a taxing statute a product falls under, and therefore the rate of tax it attracts. 
• Disputes usually arise when the Revenue seeks to place goods under a specific entry with a higher rate, while the assessee claims a residuary or lower-rate entry. 

Key principles: 

• Form at the time of sale: As held in the present case, goods are classified by what is actually supplied at the point of sale. End use is ordinarily irrelevant unless the entry itself makes end use the test. 
• Strict construction of charging provisions: A taxing entry is read as it is worded. The Revenue cannot extend it to goods the legislature has not clearly covered. 
• Burden on the Revenue: Where the Revenue seeks to classify goods under a particular entry, the burden lies on it to prove that the goods fall within that entry (Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1997). 
• Specific entry over residuary entry: Goods go to the residuary entry only when they cannot reasonably be brought under any specific entry (Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1976). Here, since the goods did not fit the "beverages" entry, the residuary entry applied. 
• Noscitur a sociis: A word in an entry takes colour from the words around it. The Court read "beverages" in the company of syrups, cordials, juices, ark and essences, all liquids. 
• Express inclusion by the legislature: Where the legislature wants a category to cover powders, concentrates or similar forms, it says so expressly, as in the Rasna entry in Pioma Industries. The absence of such language indicates that those forms are not covered.