Rajasthan High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 136Writ Petition Against Charge-Sheet Not Maintainable Unless Issued By Authority Not Competent To Initiate Disciplinary Action: Rajasthan HCCase Title: Laxman Singh Gurjar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & 2 Ors.Case Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 1The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a driver of a public transport seeking quashing of a charge-sheet which was served upon him by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation with the allegation that certain passengers were found traveling without ticket on the ground that writ petition generally does not lie against the charge-sheet unless it is established that the same had been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.Minor Rape Victims Entitled To Compensation For Incidents Prior To Introduction Of S.357A CrPC If Claim Petition Filed Before 2009: Rajasthan HCCase Title: G.K v. State of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary & Ors.Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 2Rajasthan High Court clarified recently that minor rape victims can avail the benefit of the amended provision in Section 357A of CrPC, even if the alleged incident occurred before the amendment in 2009.While partly allowing the writ petition filed by the father of the victim girl who was subjected to rape at the age of two years, the court ordered that the State must compensate the victim with an amount of Rs 3,00,000/- as stipulated in the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, framed pursuant to the enactment of Section 357A CrPC.The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further added that the general mandamus issued in this case would only apply to all those victims who presented a claim in this regard to the competent authorities prior to the amendment in 2009.Once Deduction Claim Of Education Cess Is Withdrawn, Assessee Immuned From Imposition Of Section 270A Penalty: Rajasthan High CourtCase Title: G R Infraprojects Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-TaxCase Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 3The Rajasthan High Court has held that once the deduction claim for education cess is withdrawn, the assessee is immune from the imposition of a penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner-company was asked to show cause why its claim for deduction of education cess of Rs. 12,85,58,982 be disallowed and be added back to its income for the relevant financial year and penalty proceedings be initiated under Section 270-A. In response to the notice, the petitioner company withdrew its claim for deduction of the education cess and accepted the proposed variation. The court held that the application filed by the petitioner-company under Section 270AA seeking immunity from imposition of penalty has not been decided by the Assessing Officer within the prescribed time as per Section 270AA(4), and the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty against the petitioner-company is liable to be set aside.Dept.'s Action Denying Immunity Benefit Merely Because Section 270A Penalty Was Initiated Is Erroneous: Rajasthan High CourtCase Title: Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited Versus Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCase Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 4The Rajasthan High Court has held that the department's action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act for misreporting of income is not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason, as in the penalty notice, the respondents have failed to specify the limb, "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated.The bench of Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Shubha Mehta has observed that the Deputy Commissioner violated the provisions of proviso to Section 270AA (4) by not providing any opportunity of hearing, the order passed was wholly laconic, it did not indicate as to under which part of Section 270A (9), the case of the petitioner was covered, and the revisional authority, without giving any cogent reasons, has in a wholly cursory manner indicated the case of the petitioner was within the ambit of Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 270A (9).Rajasthan High Court Allows State To Withdraw Prosecution Against Protesting MLAs, Says They Were Only Espousing Public CauseCase Title: State Of Rajasthan, Through Government Advocate v. Narendra Meghwal & Ors.Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 5Rajasthan High Court allowed the State government to withdraw criminal prosecution against four members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and one Ex-MLA, pending before the Ramganj Mandi judicial magistrate for unlawful assembly. The single-judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that the accused politicians were merely raising the reasonable demands of the public at large during the protest, inferred that there was no ...

Rajasthan High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June, 2024

Nupur Agrawal

Tags