Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 5 To February 11, 2024

Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69

Raj Kumar Saroj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70

Executive Officer Nagar vs. Stainli Khan And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71

Aman vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72

M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73

M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74

Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75

Sagar Savita vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77

M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78

Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Arms License Can Be Cancelled During Pendency Of Criminal Case If Conduct Detrimental To Public Peace, Safety: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69 [WRIT - C No. - 1614 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has upheld the cancellation of firearms license on grounds that categorically factual findings were recorded by the authority regarding the conduct of the petitioner being detrimental to public peace and safety.

The Court observed that Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 empowers the licensing authority to vary the conditions of the firearm license granted. The licensing authority also has the power to suspend or revoke firearm license if, inter alia, licensing authority is satisfied that the suspension or revocation is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety.

S.29 UP Police Act | Same Magistrate Cannot Be Both Witness & Judge In Proceedings Against SHO: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Raj Kumar Saroj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 414 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70

Allahabad High Court has held that the same Magistrate cannot be the witness and the judge in the case initiated by him against the SHO (Inspector In-Charger) under Section 29 of the UP Police Act.

Section 29 of the UP Police Act provides penalties for neglect of duties by a police officer mentioned therein including wilful breach or neglect of any provision of law or a lawful order made by competent authority. Penalties for such erring police officer are upto three months' pay, or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to both.

S.326(1) UP Municipalities Act | Notice To Municipality Not Mandatory If It Will Defeat Purpose Of Injunction Suit: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Executive Officer Nagar vs. Stainli Khan And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12988 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the rejection of anapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (rejection of plaint) on grounds that notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is not mandatory if it will defeat the purpose of the injunction suit.

Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 provides for suits against municipality or its officers, it is mandatory to provide a two month notice period to the municipality and its officers. The notice must contain the cause of action, nature of relief sought, amount of compensation claimed, and name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left at the address of the municipality or its officers whoever is sought to be impleaded.

Allahabad HC Bats For Action Against Rape Victims Who Turn Hostile During Trial After Getting Compensation From Govt

Case title - Aman vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41458 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72

The Allahabad High Court has observed that appropriate action should be taken against victims who initially lodge an FIR under Section 376 IPC (Rape), POCSO Act & SC-ST Act but turn hostile by retracting their statements during the trial after receiving compensation from the Government.

A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav further emphasized that such cases result in a waste of the investigator's and the court's time and resources.

75(4) UPGST Act| Even If There Is No Request For Personal Hearing, Must Be Heard Before Adverse Decision: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73 [Writ Tax No. 1544 of 2022]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73

The Allahabad High Court has held that before taking any adverse decision under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the assesee even if there is no request on his part.

Relying on various decisions of the Allahabad High Court regarding mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that

“Even if no request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted if any adverse decision is contemplated against such person”

UPGST | Expired E-Way Bill, But No Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High Court Quashes Penalty Order

Case Title: M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74 [Writ Tax No. 141 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty which was imposed due to production of expired e-way bill at the time of detention. The Court held that no intention to evade tax was established by the authorities. Since, there was no dispute regarding consignor and consignee and the description of the goods, the Court held that penalty could not be imposed for a technical error in absence of any intention to evade tax.

S.148 Income Tax| For Assumption Of Jurisdiction Satisfaction Needs To Be Bonafide, No Need To Record “Reason To Believe”: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75 [WRIT TAX No. - 1482 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the new law, it is not necessary for the assessing authority to record “reasons to believe”. The Court held that the assessing authorities are only required to record bonafide satisfaction regarding escapement of income for assuming jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held,

“under the amended law, it is no longer, the obligation of the Assessing Authority to record a "reason to believe", before assuming jurisdiction to reassess an assessee. A bonafide satisfaction reached as to escapement of income made suffice the test of valid assumption of jurisdiction.”

Dark Face Of Society That Girls' Parents Lodge FIRs Against Husbands While Disapproving Their Love Marriage: Allahabad HC

Case title - Sagar Savita vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17109 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76

The Allahabad High Court observed that it is the 'dark face' of the society where parents, disapproving of their children's love marriages, resort to filing FIRs against the boy under familial and societal pressure, showcasing a troubling trend.

“The court after hearing the parties, records its deepest anguish, whereby this social menace is deep rooted that even after 75 years of independence we are fighting the cases with his opponents on this score only,” the bench of Justice Prashant Kumar remarked.

UP VAT Act | Where Assessee Has Paid Far More Tax Than Input Tax Credit Claimed, Section 13(1)(f) Will Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 87 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77

The Allahabad High has held that where assessee has paid far more tax than the input tax credit claimed, Section 13(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 will not apply.

Section 13(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides conditions in which input tax credit can be claimed by an assesee holding a valid registration. Section 13(1)(f) of the Act provides that

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this sub-section where goods purchased are resold or goods manufactured or processed by using or utilizing such where goods are sold, at the price which is lower than (i) purchase price of such goods in case of resale; or (ii) cost price in case of manufacture, the amount of input tax credit shall be claimed and be allowed to the extent of tax payable on the sale value of goods or manufactured goods.”

S107 CGST | Appellate Authority Does Not Have Power To Remand Case Back To Adjudication Authority: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1417 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78

The Allahabad High Court has held that the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 does not have the power to remand the case back to the adjudication authority. It only has the power to confirm or modify or annul the order under appeal.

Section 107 of the CGST Act provides the remedy of appeal to an assesee aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the CGST Act. Sub-section 11 of Section 107 empowers the appellate authority to pass orders either confirming, modifying or annulling the order under challenge. However, sub-section 11 specifically prohibits the appellate authority from sending the case back to the authority whose order is under challenge.

Person Summoned U/S 319 CrPC Can't Avail Remedy Of Discharge U/S 227 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person added as accused after being summoned under Section 319 CrPC cannot seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC.

Referring to top Court's judgement in the case of Jogendra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (2015), a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan opined thus:

“…an accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC is entitled to invoke the remedy under the law against an illegal and improper exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, however, the same cannot have the effect of the order being undone by seeking a discharge under Section 227 CrPC”