Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: May 23 To May 29, 2022

Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 201 To 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 215]Assistant Commissioner v. Ashok Sureka 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 201Piyarul Sk v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 202The Chairperson, West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. Election Commission of India & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 203Md. Firoz Ala @ Firoj Alam v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 204Asansol Mini Bus Association and others v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 205SREI Equipment Finance Limited versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 206Shri Sadhan Roy v. Arvind Kumar Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 207Mritunjay Singh v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 208M/s One Textile v. Umesh Bharech 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 209The State of West Bengal & Ors v. Gandhi Memorial Girls' High School & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 210Ajet Ali Baidya v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 211Shukla Mondal @ Sumi v. State of W.B. & another 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 212Raju Mitra & Ors v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 213NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. A.P.O No. 11 of 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 214Kashinath Dey @ Kashi v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 215Orders/Judgments 1. Vehicle Can't Be Detained For Want Of Second E-Way Bill When The First Was Valid: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Assistant Commissioner v. Ashok SurekaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 201The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice T.S. Shivagnanam and Justice Hirnmay Bhattacharyya has held that the GST department cannot detain vehicles in the absence of a second e-way bill as the first e-way bill was valid in the interception period. The respondent/assessee submitted that the detention of the vehicle along with the goods and the demand for tax and penalty were not justified. The e-way bill, which was being carried in the vehicle transporting the goods, expired at midnight on September 8, 2019 and the goods were transported on September 9, 2019. The vehicle was intercepted at 1.30 p.m. (noon). The court held that the bona fides of the writ petitioner had to be tested on the documents, which were available on record. "The first e-way bill dated September 7th, 2019 was valid up to September 9th, 2019. Therefore, in the absence of the second e-way bill, the tax authorities at Durgapur could not have intercepted or detained the vehicle. Therefore, the explanation offered by the respondent/writ petitioner was an acceptable explanation and a case cannot be made out that there was a deliberate and willful attempt on the part of the respondent/writ petitioner to evade payment of tax so as to justify invocation of the power under Section 129 of the Act," the court while granting the relief to the assessee observed.2. 'Child Of Tender Years Prone To Prompting & Tutoring': Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted Of Murdering His WifeCase Title: Piyarul Sk v. The State of West BengalCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 202The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order of conviction for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC against the husband of the victim on the ground that the child witness being of extremely tender age when the incident occurred was unable to comprehend the circumstances and was also prone to tutoring. In the instant case, the deceased had suffered burn injuries at her matrimonial home and had subsequently passed away in the hospital she had been admitted to. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted from the record that the concerned trial court had relied heavily on the deposition of the child witness who had been summoned by the Court under section 311 CrPC to record a finding against the appellant that is the husband of the victim. Underscoring the need for the evidence of a child witness to be examined with utmost care, the Court observed, "When the prosecution primarily rests on the evidence of a child witness, it is the duty of the Court to examine the evidence of the said witness with utmost care and circumspection. A child of tender years is prone to prompting and tutoring. Hence, an onerous duty is cast on the Court to examine the deposition of a child witness not only on his capacity and ability to understand circumstances but also on the possibility of the witness being tutored by persons who have control and custody over him."3. 'Premature': Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea By WB Child Rights Commission Seeking Compensation From Election Commission For Covid-19 OrphansCase Title: The Chairperson, West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. Election Commission of India & Others.Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 203The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by the Chairperson of the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) seeking a direction upon the Election Commission of India (ECI) to compensate each of the...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: May 23 To May 29, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags