Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: July 4 To July 10, 2022

Judgments/ Orders of the Week 1. When Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings For Non-Appearance Of Parties, Remain Unchallenged, Application Filed Again For Appointment Of Arbitrator Not Maintainable: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Vimlesh Bansal v. Ashok Kumar Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 204 Case No.: S.B. Arbitration Application No. 51 of 2022 The Rajasthan High Court has held that a second arbitration application would be non-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) was not challenged under Section 14(2) of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari held that the legal maxim 'Vigilantibus Non-Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt' which means that 'the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights' would squarely apply to a situation where the petitioner slept over its right to challenge the order of termination but filed a second application for appointment of arbitrator. 2. Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of GST Evasion Case Title: Kamal Chand Bothra Versus Union Of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 205 Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8954/2022 The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has granted bail to the person accused of GST evasion of Rs. 8.64 crore. The petitioner has filed a bail application. The petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under Section 132 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He has been behind bars since May 26, 2002. The offence against the petitioner is compoundable and he had deposited the amount of Rs. 87 lakhs. The maximum punishment is 5 years, and the conclusion of the trial may take a long time. The department contended that the petitioner had evaded GST of Rs. 8.64 crores. The statements under Section 70 of the GST Act were recorded and are admissible in evidence. The petitioner is a habitual offender, so bail should be dismissed. The court directed that the petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each. 3. GST Circular Contra To GST Act, Can't Deny The Claim For ITC refund; Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited Vs Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 206 Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5714/2021 The Rajasthan High Court has held that the GST circular dated 31.03.2020, repugnant to the parent legislation, cannot be applied to oust the legitimate claim for an accumulated ITC refund. The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has observed that the supplying dealer would be entitled to claim a refund of accumulated unutilised tax credit under Section 54 (3) (ii) of the CGST Act irrespective of the fact that the input and output supplies are the same by ignoring the circular dated 31.03.2020.4. Asaram Bapu Rape Case: Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail, Rejects Third Application For Suspension Of SentenceCase Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PPCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 207The Rajasthan High Court has rejected the third application filed by self-styled godman & life convict Asaram Bapu seeking suspension of sentence for rape of a minor. The court further opined that he does not deserve indulgence of bail.Asaram was convicted and sentenced to life for offences under Sections 370(4), 342, 506, 376(2)(f) and 376D of the Indian Penal Code by a Special POCSO Court at Jodhpur in April 2018.The court also noted that two previous applications for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of Asaram have been dismissed by the court after arguments had been advanced to some extent albeit by way of withdrawal. It further noted that Asaram continues to be in custody in another trial ongoing at Gujarat, for similar offences.A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vineet Kumar Mathur, observed, "In wake of the discussion made hereinabove; looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations, and considering the fact that the appeal itself is ripe for hearing, we are of the opinion that the appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail. Hence, the instant application for suspension of sentences is rejected as being devoid of merit."Other Important Updates 1. Can Municipal Corporation Levy Urban Development Tax & Fire Cess Over Railway Properties? Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice Case Title: Taleda Sqaure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice on a plea challenging levy of Urban Development Tax and Fire Cess/Tax by the Ajmer Municipal Corporation, Ajmer over the properties owned by the Ministry of Railways through Rail...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: July 4 To July 10, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags