NOMINAL INDEX M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222 The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223 M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224 Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225 Syed Asim Ali vs. State...
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223
M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224
Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225
Syed Asim Ali vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226
Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227
Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228
Prem Kumar Tripathi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229
Mahesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230
North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231
Vinod Kumari v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232
Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. Of U.P.Lko And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233
The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234
International Service Fellowship Usa vs. Harendra Kumar Masih 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235
Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 619 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222
The Allahabad High Court has quashed assessment order taxing Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007 on grounds that it is not provided in the schedule to the Act.
Provisional assessment order against the petitioner was passed on 19.04.2006 under Section 4-A (Realization Of Tax Through Manufacturer) of the Uttar Pradesh Entry of Goods into Local Area Tax Act, 2000 read with Rule 41(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rule 2000. Final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2008 under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO.150 OF 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223
While elaborating the difference between 'appeal' and 'revision', the Allahabad High Court has held that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High court must uphold the sanctity of judgments and orders and intervene only when there are compelling reasons to do so.
“High Courts, in their capacity as revisional bodies, are entrusted with the solemn duty of upholding the sanctity of such judgments and orders, and such, should not lightly disturb them unless compelling reasons of paramount significance necessitate such intervention,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 916 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding that quantification of stock was based on eye estimate and not in accordance with law, the confiscation order as well as the penalty order are liable to be set aside.
“When the Appellate Authority had come to the finding that the officers in the survey did not carry out the quantification of the stock in the correct manner, there was no reason for the Appellate Authority to uphold the confiscation and penalty,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 110 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that input tax credit cannot be granted based solely on invoices and RTGS payment details.
While dealing with Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 the Supreme Court in M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited held that burden to prove that claim for input tax credit and the genuineness of the transaction lies solely on the assesee. The Court held that mere production of invoices and payments made by cheques is not enough to prove that the assesee is entitled to ITC.
Case title - Syed Asim Ali vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226
The Allahabad High Court has DENIED BAIL to a man accused of conspiring to kill Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari over his alleged remark made against Prophet Muhammad.
Observing that it is a case of "extreme communal hatred" wherein the deceased (Tiwari) was eliminated by way of a "brutal daylight murder", a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery denied bail to alleged conspirator Syed Asim Ali.
Case title - Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9169 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227
The Allahabad High Court has observed that under the POSCO Act 2012, regarded as a "Special Statute", offences cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the prosecutrix-victim.
"Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise. Merely because, the minor prosecutrix has later on agreed to enter into a compromise with the applicant, would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings [under the POCSO Act]," a bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed.
Case Title: Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 40 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228
The Allahabad High Court has held that intention to evade tax is essential condition for imposing penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Section 54(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides for circumstances under which penalties can be imposed on an assesee. It is provided that where an assessing authority is satisfied that an assesee has committed any wrong mentioned therein, penalty can be imposed after giving due opportunity of hearing to such assesee.
Case Title: Prem Kumar Tripathi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229 [WRIT - A No. - 19256 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229
The Allahabad High Court has held that in absence of any rule or regulation in Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Employees Service Regulation, 1975 and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Service Rules, 1976, neither a show cause notice can be issued nor departmental proceedings can be initiated against an employee after his retirement.
While quashing the proceedings against the retired employee, Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that “in lack of provisions in rules and regulations, after retirement, no show cause notice or departmental proceeding can be initiated against any employee.”
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230 [WRIT - A No. - 13670 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230
The Allahabad High Court has held that a termination of a contractual employee by the employer in terms of the conditions of the contract or their violation cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there cannot be a violation of Article 14 or Article 16 where the terms of the contract are per se not arbitrary.
The Court held that such contractual disputes must be referred under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Case Title: North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction.
It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs.
Case Title: Vinod Kumari v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232 [WRIT - C No. - 5832 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232
The Allahabad High Court has held that where revenue has illegally detained excess stamp duty collected by the authorities under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, interest must be paid by the Government even if there is no provision providing for such interest.
In September 2013, an order of refund of Rs.5,35,454/- was passed in favor of the petitioner. However, the amount was refunded in December 2023. Petitioner moved an application seeking interest on the delayed payment of the refund amount.
Case Title: Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. Of U.P.Lko And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233 [WRIT - A No. - 556 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233
The Allahabad High Court has held that the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c) and Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 does not require the person seeking compassionate appointment to be dependent on the deceased employee.
While directing the authorities to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment moved by the married daughter of the deceased employee, Justice Abdul Moin held,
“Rules, 1974 only defines the word Family as per Rule 2 (c) and Rule 5, which specifically governs the compassionate appointment, also does not indicate that a person seeking compassionate appointment should be a dependent of the deceased government servant. It cannot be a case that when a word is not included under the Rules, 1974, the respondents may add any word in order to deprive the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.”
Case Title: The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234 [WRIT - C No. - 292 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234
The Allahabad High Court has held that 1955 Act is a special act governing the conditions of work for newspaper employees including working journalists and non-working journalists and will have overriding effect over the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
“The Act of 1947 only supplements the cause of working journalists, but in no way it restricts in reaping the benefits provided under the Act 1955, especially under Section 17, which is a scheme of recovering of dues of an employee from its employer,” held Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.
Case Title: International Service Fellowship Usa vs. Harendra Kumar Masih 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235 [CONTEMPT APPEAL No. - 2 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235
The Allahabad High Court has held that intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order issuing notices to parties passed by a Single Judge sitting in contempt jurisdiction.
In the contempt petition, Single Judge issued notices and directed district administration shall not stop construction of those persons, who are not the party in the First Appeal From Order No.334 of 2022. Aggrieved from the interim order, contempt appeal was filed before the Court on grounds that the vendees of various defendants were also bound by the decision of the High Court in FAFO.
Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236 Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236
The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins an interested party cannot act as or appoint a sole arbitrator.