Cases Reported in HCC

GST—Offences and Penalties—Arrest and Detention—Input tax credit—Issue of fake invoices in favour of non-existing entities and passing on of input tax credit to other companies—Application for pre-arrest bail— Facts and circumstances prima facie, indicated that the assessee was involved in the said crime and affidavit filed on behalf of the Department revealed that he did not cooperate in the investigation. The nature of the offence necessitated custodial interrogation to facilitate effective investigation, hence, bail application, dismissed. [Hira Gobind Bhatia v. Commr. (CGST), (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 218]

Terrorism and Organised Crime—Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967— Anti-terrorism Squad received information that members of banned terrorist organisation entered city and resided under false identity. Appellant was arrested on allegations that he incited and instigated and was liable under Sections 18 and 18-B of the UAPA. Appeal against order rejecting bail. Considering the nature of evidence and the fact that the appellant was incarcerated for more than 13 years and also having regard to the punishment prescribed which ranges between a minimum of 5 years and up to life imprisonment, the appeal was allowed. [Mirza Himayat Beig v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 22

Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption—Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—S.19—Sanction for prosecution—Grant of, after denial on first occasion—Permissibility— Held, once having exercised its power, Government had no jurisdiction or authority to pass fresh order on same matter. No fresh materials were placed for consideration before the competent authority when the fresh order granting sanction was passed on the fourth occasion, having earlier refused sanction on as many as three occasions. Hence, petitions allowed. [CBI v. R. Bhuvaneswari, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 32]

Criminal Trial—Appeal against acquittal—For offences under S. 363 and 366-A IPC and S. 5 of the Immoral Traffic Act— The accused took the 14-year old victim to the brothel instead of being taken to temple. The Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him. It was established from evidence and witnesses that the accused induced the victim by taking her with an intention to seduce her to illicit intercourse. He had full knowledge and intention that because of his conduct of procuring the victim, she would be likely to be seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. Hence, the appeal was allowed and Trial Court’s decision was set aside. [State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Bhika Dive, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 48]

Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises—City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948—S. 286(2) —Grant of reasonable time to noticee to remove unauthorised construction— Held, notice issued by the Nagpur Improvement Trust to the petitioner cannot be permitted to be executed after a period of almost thirteen years in the absence of any legal impediment. Partly allowed the writ petitions and it would be open for the Nagpur Improvement Trust to take such steps as are permissible in law to seek removal of the unauthorised work. [Arjun Raghunath Wankhede v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 61]

Sales Tax and VAT—Refund—Interest on amount of refund—Assessee filed revised return —Notice of default assessment issued—Commissioner granted partial refund adjusting amount set forth in default assessment notice—Objections were filed against default assessment. The Tribunal allowed assessee’s appeal holding assessee entitled to interest. Appeal against Tribunal’s order, held, claim cannot be denied on the ground that application not filed under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 in FORM 21. The claim for a refund made by the assessee was embedded in its return, it did not arise out of an order passed by the court or an authority constituted under the 2004 Act. Hence, Assessee entitled to interest on amount refunded. [CIT v. Corsan Corviam Construction S.A. Sadbhav Engg. Ltd. JV, (2023) 5 HCC (Del) 726]

Income Tax Act, 1961—Ss. 9(1)(vi), (vii) and 195(2)—Determination of appropriate proportion of the sum payable to AWS (USA), chargeable to tax, for the purposes of withholding tax deducted at source by AWS (India)—Amazon Web Services India (P) Ltd. challenged the assessing officer’s order on application filed by AWS India under Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for determination of the appropriate proportion of the sum payable to AWS USA, chargeable to tax, for the purposes of withholding tax deducted at source (TDS). The AO had decided AWS India’s application based on information in the public domain and on the basis of certain assumptions that AWS USA is not an incorporated entity but a Limited Liability Company (LLC) and therefore, the Indo-US DTAA is inapplicable insofar as AWS USA is concerned was ex-facie erroneous.  Hence, AO’s order was modified, AWS India shall withhold 8% of payments, payable or paid to AWS USA, and deposit the same with the Revenue Authorities. [Amazon Web Services India (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2023) 5 HCC (Del) 741]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—S. 439—Continued Custody pending completion of Trial— Petition under S. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for regular bail for offence under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC. The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet as well as two supplementary charge-sheets were filed. Hence, viewed the custody was no longer required. Thus, regular bail granted on certain conditions. [Mukesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 5 HCC (Del) 765]

Rent Control and Eviction – Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—S. 25-B(8)—Revision petition against order passed by Rent Controller, allowing application of Respondent for leave to defend eviction petition—Rent Controller, concluding that petitioners played fraud upon Court by concealing acquisition of subject land by Government. Notwithstanding factum of acquisition of land by Government, not disclosed by petitioners in eviction petition, so long as land sought to be acquired not physically taken over by Government, owner continues to retain legal rights therein. Findings recorded by Rent Controller that since property in question acquired, petitioners ceased to be owner thereof, unsustainable. [Vinay Kumar Verma v. Harjit Singh Shah, (2023) 5 HCC (Del) 774]

Economic Offences—Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Ss. 19(1), 45, 65, 50(2) and 3—Arrest—Pre-arrest Bail—Grounds of Denial of—Uncooperative behaviour—Applicant had left the country and did not appear before the Enforcement Directorate as well as Central Bureau of Investigation and Trial Court even though cognizance was taken. Held, was not entitled to anticipatory bail. [Rajeev Jhawar v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 100]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—S. 439 and 437—Bail—Underlying conditions—Heinous Offence—Bail application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR for offences punishable under Sections 489-B/489-C/34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Held, the supply and circulation of fake currency notes represent a serious threat to the economy, national security, and individual well-being. Therefore, it is crucial for the courts to deal with such cases with stern hand. Hence, bail application, dismissed. [Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 111]

Education Law—Examination—Interference by Court—Evaluation Process—Multiple choice questions (MCQs) —Suggested answers of doubtful validity—Court’s role in such situation—Court ought to be circumspect in dealing with such matters and deference should be given to expert’s views. However, where there is manifest error, Court is not a silent spectator and can unravel controversy by reference to authoritative textbooks or through its own knowledge if it is possible to do so. In case of no clear response and doubtful answer, it must go to examining body instead of students. Court in appropriate circumstances can direct re-evaluation of answer sheets to resolve the tangle. [Om Prakash Verma v. NTA, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 115]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—O. 6 R. 17—Amendment in Plaint—Petition u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Trial Court’s order for dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking amendment in the plaint by incorporating the relief of specific performance of the contract [i.e. the alleged unregistered agreement to sell]. Held, no infirmity in the finding of the Trial Court as to proposed amendment seeks to change the nature of the suit/bring in new cause of action. The finding was correct and duly borne out from averments made in the unamended plaint. [Narendra Pandey v. Jagtar Singh, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 143]

GST—Assessment—Limitation—The petitioner challenged order under Sec. 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts imposing on the petitioner a total liability of Rs 9,70,596 towards CGST and SGST for the period from July 2017 to March 2018. No case made out for interference with impugned order, hence, writ petition dismissed. Permission to file the appeal order within a period of two weeks from the date of order granted. If such appeal is filed within the period of two weeks, the same shall be treated as one filed in time and the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits. [Pappachan Chakkiath v. Commr. (CGST), (2023) 1 HCC (Ker) 243]

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017—S. 54—GST—Refund—Limitation—Assessee, an exporter, filed applications for refund of input tax credit in terms of Section 54(3) of CGST Act. However, the claims were returned with defects and directed for filing fresh claims. The revised returns came to be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation in terms of Sec. 54(1) of the Act. Held, the original refund applications were within the prescribed time-limit. Impugned order, set aside and directed to process the revised refund applications and pass appropriate orders. [Focus Trading Enterprises v. Commr. (CGST), (2023) 1 HCC (Mad) 318]