Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 7 To November 13, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 456 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 460 NOMINAL INDEX Lilly Pushpam v The Additional Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 456 N/s.Sayar Cars Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 457 Vinoth v Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 458 K Vinopratha v The Teachers Recruitment Board and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 459 Ramki Cements Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 460 REPORTS 1. 14 Days Inordinate & Unexplained Delay In Considering Detainee's Representation Sufficient To Quash Preventive Detention Order: Madras HC Case Title: Lilly Pushpam v The Additional Chief Secretary and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 456 The Madras High Court recently set aside a preventive detention order after observing that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 days in considering the representation made on behalf of the detenu. The court relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in Rekha v State of Tamil Nadu, Tara Chand v State of Rajasthan and others and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sumaiya v The Secretary to Government where the court has repeatedly held that unexplained delay renders the very detention illegal and is sufficient for setting aside the detention order. In view of the same, the court directed the respondents to release the detenue forthwith. 2. Assessment Made To Best Of Judgment Of Authority Would Not Be Sufficient For Imposition Of Penalty: Madras High Court Case Title: N/s.Sayar Cars Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 457 The Madras High Court has held that the assessment made to the best of the authority's judgement would not be sufficient for the imposition of penalty, as the degree of proof required for the imposition of penalty is much higher than that required for the purpose of framing a best judgement assessment. The single bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has observed that the petitioner has admittedly remitted the difference in tax along with interest even at the time of inspection. The imposition of a penalty under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act was automatic and erroneous in law. 3. 'Casually Playing With Personal Liberty Of Accused': Madras HC Recommends Criminal Law Training For Executive Magistrates Case Title: Vinoth v Sub Divisional Magistrate and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 458 The Madras High Court recently came down heavily on Executive Magistrates passing orders "without knowing or understanding the basic concepts of criminal law". The remarks were made while hearing a challenge to an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Magistrate under Section 122(1) (b) of CrPC. Justice K Murali Shankar lamented that the Executive Magistrates were passing orders mechanically, without conducting any sort of inquiry. The court thus noted that the government should conduct Training/Refresher Courses for newly appointed Executive Magistrates to ensure that they conduct enquiry in a proper manner. 4. Judicial Review Cannot Be Totally Ousted When Key Answer Is Manifestly Erroneous, Court Cannot Shut Eyes To Obvious: Madras High Court Case Title: K Vinopratha v The Teachers Recruitment Board and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 459 The Madras High Court recently said that when the answer key is manifestly and patently erroneous, interference will be warranted. The court added, that the apex court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta has held that key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. 5. Show Cause Notice Issued To The Driver Of Consignment Is Not Adequate: Madras High Court Case Title: Ramki Cements Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 460 The Madras High Court has held that the show-cause notice issued to the driver of the consignment is not adequate. The single bench of Justice S. Srimathy has quashed the demand for tax and penalty in Form GST MOV-09 and directed the department to issue a fresh notice. The court opined that the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity. The petitioner has not received the show cause notice. The show-cause notice issued to the driver was not adequate. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. OTHER DEVELOPMENT 1. What Language I Teach My Children In, Does Not Have Any Cross Border Implications; Should Not Be Decided By Parliament: TN Govt To Madras HC While hearing petitions seeking to move education from the concurrent list to the state list, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 7 To November 13, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags