Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 18 - November 24, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 594 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 610Nominal IndexAnita Agarwal vs. Union of India, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 594Ujala Shyambihari Yadav vs. The Election Commission Of India, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 595Mahesh Khedkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 596Apollo Tyres vs. Union of India, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 597B.V. Jewels vs. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 598Oberoi Constructions vs. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 599Siti Networks Ltd. vs. Rajiv Suri, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 600Kailas Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 601Ratna Vannam vs. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 602Sandeep Pandurang Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 603Delphi World Money vs. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 604M/s. Mobile Arts S.A.L. vs. M/s. Mauj Mobile Private Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 605Judgments/Final Orders: Exporter Can't Be Denied Interest On Refund U/S 56 Of CGST Act For Period Of Delay Attributable To Revenue Dept: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Anita Agarwal vs. Union of India Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 594The Bombay High Court recently clarified that an exporter (Petitioner) is entitled to interest u/s 56 of the CGST Act for the period starting from the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill up to the date of grant of refund, although during the interregnum, the exporter's name was red flagged on the Customs' portal.The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that “Admittedly, the Petitioner has paid the amount of IGST, which the Respondents have utilized up to the date of grant of refund. Having used the money of the Petitioner, there is no justification for denying interest more so when the delay is attributable to the Respondents”Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging ECI's Directive Prohibiting Mobile Phones In Polling BoothsCase title: Ujala Shyambihari Yadav vs. The Election Commission Of India Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 595The Bombay High Court has refused to provide relief in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the directions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) that prohibited voters from carrying mobile phones in the polling booths.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar observed that Rule 9A of the IT Rules 2017 do not create any right on the petitioner or anyone else to use DigiLockers to verify identity during voting process.High Court Denies Permission To Political 'Aspirants' To Contest Maharashtra Polls Due To Conviction For Damaging Public PropertyCase Title: Mahesh Khedkar vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 596The Bombay High Court recently while refusing to suspend the sentence of three 'aspirants' who sought to contest the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly Elections, noted that though they were 'politically ambitious' on becoming public representatives, but they were punished for damaging public property itself.Sitting at Aurangabad, single-judge Justice Abhay Waghwase refused to permit three persons - Mahesh Khedkar, Anusayabai Khedkar (son and mother) and Datta Kokate to contest the upcoming assembly elections, by suspending the sentence of five years imprisonment, imposed on them by a Sessions Court in Nanded on April 11, 2023.Writ Courts Shall Not Act As Court Of Appeal Against Decision Of Lower Court Or Tribunals To Correct Errors Of Fact: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Apollo Tyres vs. Union of India Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 597The Bombay High Court recently clarified that writ courts shall not trench upon an alternate remedy provided by statute (Income tax Act) for granting any relief, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.Similarly, writ courts shall not act as a court of appeal against the decision of the lower court or Tribunals, to correct errors of fact, observed the Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain.Customs Act | Interest U/S 28AA Is Automatic When There Is A Default Or Delay In Payment Of Duty: Bombay High CourtCase Title: B.V. Jewels vs. Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 598The Bombay High Court ruled that the demand for interest u/s 28AA of the Customs Act raised for non-payment of demand, within three months of raising the demand, is properly tenable on the part of the Customs Authority.The Division Bench of Justice M.S Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that “since the payment was not made within the time specified in the said demand notice, an order of attachment was passed for failure to make the payment demanded on 18th Oct 2012 and interest payable u/s 28AA for the period commencing after that date, i.e. after 18th Oct 2012 was demanded”. Taxpayers Can't Seek Writ Remedy By Bypassing Statutory Requirements Of Pre-Deposit: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Oberoi Constructions vs. Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 599The Bombay High Court held that circumstances in which the appeals require some percentage of the...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 18 - November 24, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags