Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest : December 2024

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTHPassing Reinstatement Order Pursuant To Quashing Of Earlier Suspension Not Necessary For Suspending An Employee Again: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Sec. Edu. Lko. And Others [WRIT - A No. - 11061 of 2024] Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 736 While hearing a principal's plea–whose earlier suspension was quashed in a writ petition, and who was subsequently suspended again, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court said that non-passing of a formal order of reinstatement after quashing of suspension order does not disentitle the employer from placing the employee under suspension again. The Court held that suspension does not remove the employer-employee relationship between the parties. Consequently, the act of passing a formal order of reinstatement would amount to an empty formality. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel had neither in the arguments nor in the plea had indicated anywhere as to the prejudice that may have been caused to the petitioner on account of non issuance of the formal order of reinstatement after the earlier suspension order was quashed. Once HC Directs To Avail Alternate Remedy, Appeal U/S 107 GST Cannot Be Dismissed As Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1733 of 2024] Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 737 The Allahabad High Court has held that once the High Court has directed the assesee to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. Counsel for petitioner argued that notice and demand under Section 79 of the CGST Act were issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which it approached the High Court. The then Division Bench relegated the petitioner to alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Appeals U/S 260A Of Income Tax Act Not Sustainable In Absence Of Perversity In Tribunal's Fact Finding: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly, U.P. v. Dharam Singh [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 85 of 2024] Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 738 While entertaining an Income Tax Appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained without establishing a perversity with the fact finding of the Tribunal. “In the instant appeal the department has only challenged the fact finding off the Tribunal. A catena of Supreme Court judgments have concluded that in relation to facts, no substantial question of law would arise unless the finding of fact is perverse,” held the division bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit. Allahabad High Court Directs State GST Dept To Not Initiate Action For Assessment Years In Which Central GST Had Already Acted Case Title: M/S S. G. Plastic Industries v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1576 of 2024] Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 739 The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Goods and Service Tax Authorities to not take action for any assessment year in which the Central Goods and Service Tax Authorities have already taken action. Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the actions taken by the State and Central GST Authorities for the same assessment year, 2017-18. It was argued that once State GST Authorities had completed assessment proceedings under Section 74, the Central GST Authorities could not have issued notice for the assessment year. Relief Hit By S. 438(1)(ii) CrPC: Allahabad HC Cancels Advocate's Anticipatory Bail In Extortion Case For Concealing Criminal Antecedents Case title - Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 532 of 2023] Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 740 The Allahabad High Court recently cancelled anticipatory bail granted to an advocate in an extortion case, noting that he had not mentioned the factum of previous criminal antecedents before the trial court, which granted him the relief. A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized that one of the crucial factors in granting anticipatory bail is the criminal antecedents of the accused, which must be carefully evaluated. Therefore, if the accused has a history of criminal behaviour, whether explained or not, it could significantly impact the decision to grant anticipatory bail. District Required To Pay Panel Advocates For All Matters They Received Notice For And Appeared In: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr....

Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest : December 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags