Patna High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 11 To September 17, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 105-110]Rajeev Kumar and Anr vs. The Union of India and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 105Chandrama Prasad Singh @ Chandrama Prasad @ Tuntun Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 106M/s Narayani Industry vs. The State of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 107Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Satish Kumar Keshri 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 108Gobinda Construction Versus UOI Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 109Aamar Gosai Vs. The State Of Bihar 2023 Livelaw (Pat) 110Judgements This WeekCourts Cannot Order Implementation Of Optional Central Govt Schemes In State, Policy Domain Of State Govt: Patna High CourtCase Title: Rajeev Kumar and Anr vs. The Union of India and OthersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 105 While clarifying that the Court cannot, through a judicial order, direct the implementation of a Scheme formulated by the Central Government, which can be implemented only at the option of the State Government, the Patna High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a directive for the state government to implement the guidelines related to the Post Matric Scholarship scheme for students belonging to the Scheduled Caste in India.Patna High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused In Money Laundering Case Due to Lack Of Satisfactory Explanation Of Assets And Cash HoldingsCase Title: Chandrama Prasad Singh @ Chandrama Prasad @ Tuntun Singh vs. The State of Bihar and AnotherCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 106 The Patna High Court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner in connection with a Special (Trial) PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) Case arising from ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) proceedings. The petitioner faced charges under Sections 3, 4, 44, and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The prosecution case stemmed from a complaint filed under Sections 44 and 45 of the Act, alleging that the petitioner was accused in eight criminal cases registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.Appellate Authority Or Article 226 Of The Constitution Cannot Extend Delay Condonation Period With A Specified Timeframe: Patna High CourtCase Title: M/s Narayani Industry vs. The State of BiharCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 107 The Patna High Court has issued a significant ruling clarifying the limitations of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in cases involving the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST). The court has held that when a statute prescribes a specific time frame for condoning delays, the Appellate Authority under Article 226 does not have the authority to extend this stipulated period. The case in question involved M/s Narayani Industry, a Partnership firm, which was an assessee under the BGST Act. The petitioner was aggrieved with the assessment order that determined tax liabilities under both the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST), along with associated interest and penalties.Income Tax Act | Assessment U/S Section 153A Must Be Based On Incriminating Material Disclosed In Search: Patna High CourtCase Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Satish Kumar KeshriCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 108 The Patna High Court while providing important clarifications regarding assessments conducted under , of the Income Tax Act, 1961, emphasized that such assessments must not be arbitrary and should rely on material evidence discovered during the search. The division bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy held, “Hence, the assessment referred to in Section 153A enables the Assessing Officer to proceed for assessment, when any such assessment for the previous six years is pending, treating the proceedings to have abated. In so proceeding with the assessment, the Assessing Officer would be entitled to reckon both disclosed and undisclosed income of the assessee.”Patna High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Section 16(4) Of CGST Act, 2017Case Title: Gobinda Construction Versus UOI Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 109The Patna High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 and did not find Section 16(4) to be violative or inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. The bench of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Madhuresh Prasad observed that concession of ITC under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act is dependent upon the fulfilment of requisite conditions laid down under various provisions, including Section 16(4).Delay In Lodging FIR Cannot Be Used As "Ritualistic Formula" For Discarding Prosecution Case: Patna High Court Upholds POCSO ConvictionCase Title: Aamar Gosai Vs. The State Of BiharCitation: 2023 Livelaw (Pat) 110 While emphasizing that a delay in filing the first information report (FIR) should not automatically lead to the dismissal of a prosecution case or cast doubt on ...

Patna High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 11 To September 17, 2023

Bhavya Singh

Tags