0

Jharkhand HC quashes criminal proceedings against company and director for non compliance with CGST summons

Uncategorized

Title: Satyendra Singh Kushwaha v The State of Jharkhand

Citation:  Cr.M.P. No. 2454 of 2019

Dated on: 19.6.2019

Corum:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

 

Facts of the case

In the case of Satyendra Singh Kushwah vs. State of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings in the case. The central issue revolved around non-compliance with summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The petitioner, Director of M/s. SSK Devcon Private Limited, and the company itself filed petitions for the quashing of criminal proceedings. The complaint alleged non-payment of GST from January 2018 to November 2018, ignoring summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and violation of Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court noted that the petitioner had replied to the summons, providing details of payments made. The authority concerned acknowledged the replies and granted time for further deposits. The total GST amount of Rs.5,60,52,391/- was eventually paid on 08.02.2019. No proceedings for tax determination or recovery were initiated, indicating no outstanding dues against the petitioners. The court highlighted that summon replies, entertained by the authority, evidenced compliance. It emphasized that continuing proceedings under Section 174 IPC would amount to an abuse of legal process, especially considering the prescribed penalties under the CGST Act.

Legal Provision

Section 70 of the central goods and service tax (CGST) Act, 2017 empowers the proper officer to summon any persons whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner as provided in CPC, 1908. In case of Satyendra Singh Kushwah v State of Jharkhand, the central issue revolved around non compliance with summons issued under section 70 of the CGST Act.

Section 174 of the IPC deals with nonattendance in obedience to an order form a public servant. It states that whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent as such public servant, to issue the same intentionally omits to attend at that place or time or departs shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which extends to five hundred rupees or with both.

In the Satyendra Singh Kushwaha v State of Jharkhand case, the complainant alleged non-payment of GST from Jan 2018 to November 2018, ignoring summons under section 70 of the CGST act, violation of section 174 of IPC.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The court noted that the petitioner had replied to the summons, providing details of payments made. The authority concerned acknowledged the replies and granted time for further deposits. The total GST amount of Rs.5,60,52,391/- was eventually paid on 08.02.2019. No proceedings for tax determination or recovery were initiated, indicating no outstanding dues against the petitioners. The court highlighted that summon replies, entertained by the authority, evidenced compliance. It emphasized that continuing proceedings under section 174 IPC would amount to abuse of legal process, especially considering the prescribed penalties under the CGST Act.  and the HC of Jharkhand disposed off the petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view judgement

0

The accused’s physical presence is not mandatory during the proceedings for the recall of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW): HC of Telengana

Uncategorized

Title:

Citation: Criminal Petition NO: 12140 of 2023

Dated on: 5.12.2023

Corum:  The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. MADHAVI DEVI

 

Facts of the Case

The Criminal Petition No. 12140 of 2023 was filed by Arige Venkata Ramaiah, S/o Kotaiah Chary, The petitioner sought quashing of the Docket Order dated 05.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in C.C.No.4637 of 2022 in crime No 375 of Junior civil Judge-cum-rv Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad quashed the Docket order dated 05.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in C.C.No.4637 of 2022. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the magistrate within one week and directed the magistrate to admit the plea for surrender and bail application as per law.

Legal Provision

Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates that every warrant of arrest issued by a court must be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such court, and bear the seal of the court. The warrant remains in force until it is cancelled by the court which issued it, or until it is executed.

Court Analysis and Judgement

Hon’ble Justice T. MADHAVI DEVI from the High Court of state of Telangana looking into the facts and merits of the case and upon looking into other precedents came to the decision of Allowing the Criminal Petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view Judgement

0

The accused’s physical presence is not mandatory during the proceedings for the recall of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW): HC of Telengana

Uncategorized

Title:

Citation: Criminal Petition NO: 12140 of 2023

Dated on: 5.12.2023

Corum:  The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. MADHAVI DEVI

 

Facts of the Case

The Criminal Petition No. 12140 of 2023 was filed by Arige Venkata Ramaiah, S/o Kotaiah Chary, The petitioner sought quashing of the Docket Order dated 05.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in C.C.No.4637 of 2022 in crime No 375 of Junior civil Judge-cum-rv Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad quashed the Docket order dated 05.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in C.C.No.4637 of 2022. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the magistrate within one week and directed the magistrate to admit the plea for surrender and bail application as per law.

Legal Provision

Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates that every warrant of arrest issued by a court must be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such court, and bear the seal of the court. The warrant remains in force until it is cancelled by the court which issued it, or until it is executed.

Court Analysis and Judgement

Hon’ble Justice T. MADHAVI DEVI from the High Court of state of Telangana looking into the facts and merits of the case and upon looking into other precedents’ came to the decision of Allowing the Criminal Petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

Rajasthan High Court was not justified in issuing the mandamus as it failed to consider the significant impact on both consumer and public interests: Supreme court

Uncategorized , , ,

Case Title: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs MB power (Madhya Pradesh)             Ltd. & Ors.

Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6503 OF 2022

Decided on: 08.01.2024

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai

Facts of the Case

The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 20th September 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The High Court held that the respondent no. 1 to 5 are bound to purchase a total of 906 MW of electricity from the successful bidders. It, therefore, directed the writ petitioner- MB Power to supply 200 MW electricity to the respondents within the limit of 906 MW. Furthermore, it ordered respondent 1 to 5 to issue Letter of Intent to PTC within 2 weeks of receiving compliant application. Court had specifically directed the State Commission to decide the tariff under Section 63 of the Electricity Act having regard to the law laid down both statutorily and by this Court.

Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission sought to procure 1000 MW of power via competitive bidding in 2009. Bids were received, 7 bidders qualified, but MB Power wasn’t among them. PTC India, a power-trading company, submitted a bid for 1041 MW sourced from five generators. BEC gave its opinion that since the rates quoted vary considerably, negotiations could be held with the bidders. the L-4 and L-5 bidders filed Writ Petitions before the High Court, seeking to strike down the negotiations process. The court directed the State Commission to go into the issue of approval for the adoption of tariffs concerning L-4 and L-5 bidders. Subsequent to the judgment, the BEC came to a finding that the tariffs quoted by the L-4 and L-5 bidders were not aligned to the prevailing market prices, and the state government held the same. The writ petition filed by MB Power has been allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved by this, the present appellants filed this civil appeal.

Issue

Whether the High Court was justified in issuing mandamus in the nature it issued?

Legal provision

Article 226 of Indian Constitution gives High Courts the power to issue writs to carry out the implementation of Fundamental Rights.

Section 63 of the Electricity Act –

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 62, the Appropriate Commission shall adopt the tariff if such tariff has been determined through transparent process of bidding in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government.

Court Analysis and Decision

 The Apex court found that the High Court was not justified in issuing the mandamus in the nature it issued for which it took reference to the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 617]. The court deemed the issued mandamus flawed, since is failed  to consider the significant impact on both consumer and public interests

The court held that Contract awards, public or private, are primarily commerce-driven. While the State has flexibility in selecting its decision-making method and even negotiating offers, it must follow its own established procedures and avoid arbitrariness. While courts generally don’t scrutinize award decisions, they can review the process for bias, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness. Even then, judicial intervention happens only under exceptional circumstances, prioritizing public interest and avoiding merely technical irregularities. Furthermore, the decision-making process, as adopted by the BEC was totally in conformity with the principles laid down by the Court from time to time.  The conclusion by BEC that the rates quoted by SKS Power (L-5 bidder) were not market aligned, was approved by the state commission.

The appeals were therefore allowed and the judgment and order of the learned APTEL dated 1st June 2023 is quashed and set aside.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

0

Calcutta HC: overture’s ex-parte order , reverts case on excise duty for waste gas from carbon black manufacturing

Uncategorized

Title: M/s Himadri Speciality Chemical & Anr v The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata – IV Commissionerate & Ors.

Citation:  WPA No. 22712 of 2017

Dated on: 5.1.2024

Corum:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Md. Nizamuddin

 

Facts of the case

In the present case the petitioner, M/s Himadri Speciality Chemical & Anr., is a manufacturer of “Carbon Black” since March 27, 2009. During the process of manufacture of Carbon Black, a Waste Gas/Off Gas/Tail Gas (hereinafter referred to as the said gas) emerges as a by-product and having regard to the environmental norms and pollution laws, petitioner incinerates the said gas so as to prevent emission of poisonous gas and being neither marketable nor stable nor transportable to other location and which is generated during the process of manufacture of carbon black, after incineration of the same, in observing pollution laws and to prevent the atmosphere being polluted and not being subjected to excise duty.

Legal Provision

The question of law involved in this writ petition is whether lean gas/waste gas containing carbon monoxide which is poisonous gas and being neither marketable nor stable nor transportable to other location and which is generated during the process of manufacture of carbon black, after incineration of the same, in observing pollution laws and to prevent the atmosphere being polluted and not being subjected to excise duty, can be made excisable on the ground that in course of incineration of the said lean gas considerable amount of heat is generated which is used in generation of electricity which is partly for captive consumption and is partly sold.

Case Analysis and Judgement

The judgement sets aside the impugned ex parte adjudication order dated 30th November, 2017 and remands the matter back to the adjudicating authority concerned to pass fresh adjudication order by allowing the petitioner to file objection against the impugned adjudication order by treating the same as show cause notice and to take all the points raised in this writ petition and supplementary affidavit, the judgments and relevant circulars and notifications petitioner intends to rely in support of its case and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representatives within two weeks from date and final and disposes off the writ petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view Judgement

1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 73