0

Delhi High Court Orders Firm’s Compliance with Anti Evasion Cell Investigation and Appearance Before Proper Officer in GST Suspension Case Update

Delhi High Court Orders Firm’s Compliance with Anti Evasion Cell Investigation and Appearance Before Proper Officer in GST Suspension Case Update 

Case Name: M/s Balaji Tilak Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 7224/2024 

Dated: May 20, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The facts of the present case centre the petitioners in their petition, M/S Balaji Tilak Metal and Alloys P. Ltd., the petitioner requests the revocation of a Show Cause Notice that was issued on March 27, 2024, and that suspended their GST registration. 

On February 15, 2024, a Show Cause Notice was submitted, suggesting that the petitioner’s GST registration be cancelled and stopped immediately. When the petitioner showed up before the Proper Officer, the Anti Evasion Cell, which was looking into the petitioner as a non-existent firm, told him to join the inquiry. 

 ISSUES: 

  • The petitioner seeks to quash a Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2024, which suspended their GST registration 

 CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

The learned counsel for the appellants fiercely and strongly argued that a Show Cause Notice that suspended the petitioner’s GST registration is being challenged. Existence of Business: The petitioner disputes the Anti Evasion Cell’s assertion that they are a nonexistent company, arguing that they were in fact operating and conducting business.  

Updated Address: The petitioner claims that the Anti Evasion Cell failed to notice their new address, which was updated on the GST portal. Inquiry Compliance: As a result of the petitioner’s failure to participate in the Anti Evasion Cell inquiry, the Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2024 specified the suspension that followed. 

Additionally, the petitioners contended that a Show Cause Notice that had suspended their GST registration is being contested. They refuted the Anti Evasion Cell’s claim that they were a nonexistent company, claiming that they were in fact operating and conducting business, and that the Anti Evasion Cell was unaware of their updated address on the GST portal. The petitioners further contended that the Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2024, which had specified the suspension, was issued as a result of their failure to comply with the Anti Evasion Cell’s investigation. 

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants were sharply and passionately rejected by the learned counsel the petitioner’s GST registration was suspended, according to the respondents, because they did not cooperate with the Anti Evasion Cell’s investigation and did not satisfy the Proper Officer regarding their business activities at the registered address.  

The investigation by the Anti Evasion Cell was based on the allegation that the petitioner was a non-existent firm. The petitioner was found to be non-existent at the earlier address, and the address had been updated on the GST portal, which the Anti Evasion Cell was unaware of. As a result of these arguments, a Show Cause Notice was issued, suggesting the petitioner’s GST registration be cancelled. 

Additionally, the respondents contended that the Anti Evasion Cell’s investigation was predicated on the claim that the petitioner was a nonexistent company. The former location was discovered to be unoccupied, and the Anti Evasion Cell was not informed that the address had been modified on the GST portal. These arguments resulted to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice, which recommended that the petitioner’s GST registration be terminated. 

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Anti Evasion Cell on May 28, 2024, at noon, and to appear before the Proper Officer on May 29, 2024, at noon, the court said. The court then directed the aforementioned authorities to issue the necessary directives in response to the petitioner’s request to have the suspension lifted after a maximum of two weeks. 

 The court ordered the petitioner to appear before the Anti Evasion Cell and the Proper Officer on 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024 respectively, with further orders to be passed within two weeks thereafter. 

“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.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

0

Supreme Court Affirms HPCL’s Termination of Dealership Agreement for Breach of Terms by Dealer

Supreme Court Affirms HPCL’s Termination of Dealership Agreement for Breach of Terms by Dealer 

Case Name: M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Dharamnath Singh & Ors. 

Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos.6509-6510 Of 2024 

Dated: May 17, 2024 

Quorum: Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

By virtue of a Dealership Agreement1 dated February 1, 1997, the respondent was designated as a dealer for the appellant(s)’ petrol, diesel, motor oil, grease and other like products. On August 18, 2007, some representatives of SGS India2, purporting to be an organisation designated by the appellant(s), showed up to the respondent’s petrol station and collected samples of Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel (HSD).  

On August 20, 2007, the respondent received a show cause notice from the appellant, requesting that they provide a response to the alleged irregularities within seven days.The reply was notified of the supply suspension with immediate effect by the Senior Sales Officer of the Durgapur Sales Area, based on the Preliminary Test Report.  

The respondent at the appellant(s)’ regional office questioned the Agency’s authority to carry out such a sample collection. On the other hand, it is claimed that the identical Marker Test was performed on these samples without consideration. The writ petition that ultimately led to the current proceedings was filed because the petitioner felt unfairly treated by the order of suspension of supply.  

 LEGAL PROVISIONS:  

  • Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-  Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. 

 CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

The learned counsel for the appellants fiercely and strongly argued that it was argued that Clause 4 of the Agreement stipulates that a licence is immediately terminated upon (a) the Agreement’s termination or (b) any of the terms of the Agreement that are outlined in Clause 58.  

 It was argued that the Agency was entitled to carry out the tests in question because mobile labs and “agencies authorised by oil companies,” in addition to officials from the oil companies, were allowed to draw samples under Clause 2.2.2. of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, which were released by the Government of India on August 1, 2005. 

Since the respondent is not being prosecuted for violating the Control Order and the Agreement is being terminated due to breach of terms and conditions, the provisions of the Control Order do not apply to this particular situation.  

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants were sharply and passionately rejected by the learned counsel for the respondents that the MDGs have legal force because they are issued in accordance with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.  

According to the aforementioned, the respondent’s supply was suspended. It cannot decide to abide by the parts of the law that best serve its interests. It was not possible to terminate the Agreement without following the Control Order’s inspection procedures. The word “duly authorised representative” is used in Clause 39 of the Agreement, however it is not defined there. Only “authorised officers,” as defined by the Control Order’s Clause 2(b), are granted the authority to search and seize materials in accordance with Clause 7.  

It was also contended that The agreement does not specify how samples should be collected, how tests should be conducted, or how to handle any other situation involving suspected product adulteration. Both the 1998 decree and the 2005 Control decree would impose obligations on an oil manufacturing business. Consequently, it would be necessary to adhere to the process outlined in Clause 7 of the Control Order.  

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court said that What may be inferred from the foregoing excerpt is that the court has the authority to punish anyone who violates the Control Order. Consequently, in order to prosecute an individual for breaching the search and seizure restrictions outlined in Clause (7) thereof, the individual in question must be brought to justice, specifically for having broken said Control Order. 

On the other hand, as the appellants’ learned counsel has argued, the respondent was only supposed to face prosecution for breaking the terms of the agreement inter se the parties, not for any other purported infraction.  

The main takeaway from the aforementioned ruling is that, in order to terminate a dealership agreement, it must be done so strictly in accordance with the guidelines and rules established in that respect. A dealer must be informed in advance of a sampling test so that arrangements can be made for his or her representative to attend. In the current situation, the respondents have objected to the sample collection procedure because they were upset that SGS India, a third party, was chosen to take samples rather than because there was a notice gap or any other instance of a violation of the natural justice principles covered in the aforementioned ruling.  

“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.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

0

Delhi High Court Affirms Commercial Court’s Order on Interest Rate in Commercial Dispute on Grounds of Authenticity

Case Name: Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. v. Comfia Ecom Pvt. Ltd. 

Case No.: RFA(COMM) 187/2023 

Dated: May 13,2024 

Quorum:  Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju  

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The appellant filed the current appeal contesting a judgement and decree dated 21.03.2023 (referred to as the impugned judgement) that was corrected by an order dated 09.08.2023, which was granted by the learned Commercial Court in the case of Comfia Ecom Private Limited v. Casa 2 Stays Private Limited.  

Under the terms of the contested judgement, the learned Commercial Court awarded the respondent (hereafter referred to as the respondent) ₹8,49,385/-as well as interest at the rate of 18% annually from the date the suit was filed until the decretal amount was realised.  

The initial delivery of the assailed judgement had decreed ₹5,91,906/-. Nevertheless, the aforementioned figure was adjusted in accordance with the ruling dated August 9, 2023, issued by the learned Commercial Court in response to an application filed by the respondent under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as the CPC). The appellant in this appeal also challenges the aforementioned order of 09.08.2023. 

The respondent claimed to have supplied the appellant with commodities (T-shirts) when it filed the aforementioned lawsuit [CS (COMM) 83/22] in an attempt to recover damages. The amounts due in accordance with the raised bills, however, were not entirely paid off. According to the claim, the main point of contention between the parties concerned the delivery of 2,500 T-shirts, which were paid for with an invoice dated June 30, 2018 (Ex. PW-1/2A), totaling ₹5,70,725/-. 

Along with the appellant’s ledger account from its books of accounts for the months of April 2018 through August 22, 2020, which showed the outstanding balance of ₹5,91,906/-, the respondent had also supplied this information. The respondent had proven that the appellant owed the respondent the sum shown, and the learned Commercial Court granted this claim, decreeing the amount shown. Furthermore, the skilled Commercial Court acknowledged that the claimant was qualified for pre-suit interest valued at ₹2,57,479/-, and as a result, it issued the contested ruling.  

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 At any point, the Court may make corrections on its own initiative or at the request of any party if there are clerical or mathematical errors in its rulings, decrees, or orders, or if there are errors resulting from any unintentional slippage or omission. 

 

ISSUES: 

  • Whether respondent is entitled to the recovery of Rs.5,91,906/- towards balance amount for supply of goods to the appellant? 
  • Whether respondent is entitled to interest claimed @ 18%per annum w.e.f. July, 2019 till the filing of the suit, amounting to Rs.2,57,479/- from the appellant? 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 

The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant questions its obligation to pay the sum that the respondent has claimed, and it challenges the contested judgement in multiple ways. Although there was no such claim in the plaint, the appellant argues that the impugned judgement was based on an incorrect assumption that the respondent had kept a running account. Additionally, the appellant asserts that the respondent’s supplied items were recalled due to defects.  

Considering this, the sum that the it was not payable to the respondent. Furthermore, according to the appellant, they the Commercial Court was incorrect to permit pre-suit interest at the 18% annual interest rate, given that the respondent was financially protected with respect to the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, also known as the MSMED Act. Still, no such allegation was presented. Inside the complaint.  

It was also argued that a credit balance of ₹7,29,402/- was recorded in the ledger account (Ex.PW-1/6) as of June 5, 2018, according to the learned counsel representing the appellant, who had primarily challenged the impugned judgement. ₹5,70,725/-was debited from the ledger account for Bill No. CR1240 (Ex. PW-1/2A), resulting in ₹1,58,677/-being left as a credit balance. Since the invoice in question (Bill No. CR1240), which served as the foundation for the respondent’s claim, was paid in advance, the appellant’s skilled counsel argued honestly that this plainly demonstrated that the payments were made beforehand. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:  

The appellant’s counsel vehemently contended that it creates customised clothing in accordance with the specifications of its clients and operates an online apparel store under the name Poptailor Corporate Apparel. The accused runs a network of hotels in India and had placed orders for clothing to be supplied and transported to various parts of the nation.  

According to the defence, on June 30, 2018, the appellant made an order for the production and delivery of 2,500 T-shirts in different sizes, each specially tailored to meet the appellant’s needs. The products were to be delivered, and the total amount due for the aforementioned Purchase Order was ₹5,70,725/-. As an establishment under the MSMED Act, the respondent alleges that it had made it clear to the appellant that the items were not returnable once sold and that, following 45 days of the goods’ delivery, it would be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% annually.  

In addition, the respondent asserts that the appellant has paid different sums for a number of other successfully completed transactions; yet, the invoice dated June 30, 2018, regarding the 2,500 T-shirts, has not been paid. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

According to the court’s ruling, it is evident that the appellant got the products and did not return them to the respondent. Despite the fact that the appellant claims the entire lot was flawed based on an email dated 10.07.2018 (Ex.DW1/4), there is no correspondence in the public domain that suggests the lot as a whole was judged to be flawed. Admittedly, as previously said, the appellant had done nothing to return the disputed goods.  

The court also observed that the email dated July 10, 2018, can be easily read to show that the appellant had only mentioned 22 shirts. The appellant did not demand that the respondent return all of the goods it had delivered, according to the emails sent on July 9, 2018, and July 10, 2018. 

In favour of Comfia Ecom Private Ltd. versus Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd., the High Court upheld a decree for ₹8,49,385/-with 18% interest per year from the date of the suit until the decretal amount was realised. 

The court then held that a bill for 2500 T-shirts of ₹5,70,725 that Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. failed to pay was the main source of contention in this case. Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the products were defective and returned, the court took ledger accounts and email exchanges into consideration. The appellant claimed it was unaware of the respondent’s right to pre-suit interest at the rate of 18% annually, according to the MSMED Act. However, the court determined that the respondent was in error3. 

“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.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora 

Click to view judgment.

0

“Standardizing International boundaries: Navigating International Commercial Disputes Through Arbitration.”

Businesses that expand into international markets are susceptible to legal disputes brought on by differences in laws, rules, and corporate procedures as well as errors of thought, language, and cultural hurdles. Companies that deal with cross-border disputes may require the assistance of legal specialists to address such challenges. 

Arbitration has become a widely accepted form of dispute settlement on a global scale in the last several decades. It is becoming the main technique for resolving business conflicts. The combination of global economic expansion and technological advancements has made arbitration a successful dispute resolution process. 

This article examines at the notion of international business arbitration, how it functions, and how it sets itself apart from other means of settling disputes. 

OVERVIEW: 

The process of resolving disputes between parties in various countries by an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators is known as international commercial arbitration. It entails bringing the disagreement before arbitration rather than a court of law. A ruling on the dispute will be binding and made by the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. 

To further break it down, it is comparable to a worldwide courtroom where corporations battle it out is international commercial arbitration. We have arbitrators who decide conflicts in secret rather than gavels and powdered wigs. You don’t have to reveal your cards to everyone, much like in a refined game of poker 

The swift advancement of international commercial arbitration has compelled national legal systems to accommodate it and establish supportive legislative frameworks that enable it to thrive. It has been correctly stated that there was a competitive phase between the legislature and judiciary in the 1980s and 1990s as they all attempted to draw in more international arbitration. The two primary outcomes of this competition were the modernization and liberalisation of arbitration systems and the transfer of international arbitration’s advantageous status to domestic courts.  

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: 

The Jay Treaty (1794) between Great Britain and the United States, which established three arbitral commissions to settle disputes and questions coming out of the American Revolution, is credited with helping to shape modern international arbitration.  

 Ad hoc arbitration courts were created in the 19th century as a result of several arbitral agreements that were reached, allowing them to handle a large volume of claims or particular instances. The most important was the arbitration of Alabama claims under the terms of the Treaty of Washington (1871), wherein the United States and Great Britain agreed to resolve disputes resulting from Great Britain’s failure to uphold its neutrality during the American Civil War.  

Established in The Hague in 1899, the Permanent Court of Arbitration is made up of a panel of jurists nominated by the member nations, from which the claimant governments choose the arbitrators. 

PROCESS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: 

International Commercial Arbitration is like a global courtroom where businesses duke it out. Instead of powdered wigs and gavels, we’ve got arbitrators who settle disputes privately. Here’s how it works- 

  1. AGREEMENT: An arbitration agreement is normally signed by the parties to the dispute at the start of the international commercial arbitration process. The rules of procedure, the selection of the arbitrator or arbitrators, and the arbitration location are all outlined in this agreement, detailing the terms and conditions of the arbitration process.   
  2.  ARBITRATORS: The arbitration procedure might start after the agreement is signed. Once the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators has heard all of the arguments and supporting documentation, they will decide how to resolve the disagreement. The only situations in which this decision can be contested are those in which there was a significant irregularity in the arbitration procedure or in which the conclusion is against public policy. Otherwise, this decision is final and binding.   
  3.  GOVERNANCE: The United Nations Committee on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration is one of the international conventions and national legislation that govern international commercial arbitration. A thorough framework for the management of international business arbitration procedures is provided by this model law. 
  4.  HEARING, DECISION AND AWARDS: During the arbitration hearing, both parties submit their witnesses, evidence, and arguments. Final Decision: Based on the facts submitted, the arbitrator or panel renders a legally binding judgement. Award: An arbitral award, which serves as documentation for the ruling, is enforceable in national courts.  

GENERAL PRINCIPLES: 

  • MUTUAL CONSENT: Mutual consent is necessary for the mutual process of arbitration. Only when the parties have decided to start arbitration can it begin. If applicable, the parties may use a submission agreement to add any arbitration clause they see fit. Additionally, the parties cannot end the arbitration agreement on their own. 
  • CONFIDENTIAL PROCESS: The confidentiality of the matter is particularly protected under the arbitration rule. The arbitration procedure protects confidentiality and prevents pointless disputes about the parties and case. Any information disclosed during the process could lead to judgements and prizes. Trade secrets and other sensitive material submitted to the arbitration tribunal may, under certain conditions, be subject to access restrictions set by the parties. 
  • CHOICE OF ARBITRATOR: The arbitrator that each party selects should be someone they believe is qualified to hear their case. Every party designates one arbitrator if a three-person arbitration panel has been selected by the parties. Next, the two arbitrators who were chosen will have to agree on the presiding arbitrator. In addition, the centre has the authority to directly select members of the arbitration tribunal or recommend a suitable arbitrator with the necessary experience. 

ADVANTAGES:  

  • Compared to typical litigation, arbitration is frequently quicker and more effective. This is due to the fact that arbitration procedures are typically more flexible and less formal than court proceedings, which may be expensive and time-consuming.  
  • By using arbitration, the disputing parties can select the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators of their choice. This entails that the parties may choose an arbitrator or arbitrators with subject-matter experience related to the issue, resulting in a better informed and equitable conclusion. 
  • Compared to typical litigation, arbitration is frequently more discreet. Since court procedures are typically open to the public, confidential information pertaining to the parties to the dispute may be disclosed. On the other hand, arbitration procedures are typically private, allowing the parties to maintain the confidentiality of the specifics of the disagreement.  

CASE LAWS:  

Enercon (India) Ltd. and Others v. Enercon GmbH and Another [1]:  

The Enercon case clarified the Indian courts’ authority to grant such a ruling, addressing the issue of impartiality in international commercial arbitrations. The judiciary issued directives regarding the situations in which it can intervene and emphasised the need for a balance between protecting the independence of arbitration proceedings and guaranteeing effective representation.  

This choice prompted parties to choose arbitration over other channels for resolving international disputes and helped to create a more arbitration-friendly environment. It is considered to be a landmark case in the ambit of international commercial arbitration.  

Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. (BALCO case) [2]  

Judge intervention and party sovereignty must be delicately balanced, as highlighted by the BALCO case, a watershed moment in Indian arbitration. The principle of minimal intervention by the judiciary in arbitration proceedings was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision. The court emphasised that arbitral decisions should be respected unless they are manifestly illegal or against public policy, and it clarified that the scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited.  

Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progеtto Grano Spa [3]: 

The subject matter of this case is international commercial arbitration’s internal measures. The Supreme Court expounded upon the authority of Indian courts to provide interlocutory appeals in favour of foreign-sat arbitrations. 

Amееt Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprise [4]:  

The question of whether the parties might define the “seat” of arbitration through the arbitration agreement was addressed by the Bombay High Court in this particular case. The court determined the applicable criminal legislation by defining the significance of a seat carrier.  

CONCLUSION:  

Rapidly expanding economies need a reliable, stable dispute resolution process in order to draw in international investment. Economic actors in India and overseas have developed a strong preference for arbitration as a means of resolving disputes because of the enormous backlog of cases that are waiting in Indian courts. 

India has not always adhered to worldwide best practices in arbitration, even though it was one of the founding members of the New York Convention. But there has been a significant change in mindset during the past five years. Courts and lawmakers in India have updated the arbitration laws to reflect global best practices. The pro-arbitration stance of the courts and the enactment of the 2015, 2019, and 2021 Amendment Acts provide grounds for optimism that Indian arbitration law would soon adopt these global best practices. 

“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 Riddhi S Bhora  

[1] Enercon (India) Ltd. and Others v. Enercon GmbH and Another (AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 3152)  

[2] Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. (BALCO case) (CIVIL APPEAL NO.7019 OF 2005) 

[3] Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progеtto Grano Spa ((2013) 115 CORLA 193) 

[4] Amееt Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprise (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4690 OF 2018) 

0

Commercial Electricity Rates Inapplicable To Lawyers’ Chambers As Legal Profession Is Not ‘Commercial’ In Nature: Allahabad High Court

CASE TITLE:   Tehsil Bar Association, Sadar Tehsil Parisar, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 245 [WRIT – C No. – 2637 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 03.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon’ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

INTRODUCTION

The Allahabad High Court has determined that the actions undertaken by legal professionals do not constitute ‘commercial activities.’ Therefore, the electricity tariffs applicable to commercial establishments cannot be applied to lawyers’ offices when they are utilized for professional engagements.

FACTS

The Sadar Tehsil Bar Association brought a case before the Court challenging the imposition of commercial electricity rates on lawyers’ chambers.

The legal representative for the petitioner asserted that the practice of law does not qualify as a commercial endeavor. Lawyers contribute to society by participating in the administration of justice, reflecting a profession that serves the public good rather than pursuing commercial gains.

Reference was made to previous circulars issued by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, which classified the judiciary under the LMV-1 category, applicable to residential users. Furthermore, it was argued that lawyers’ chambers in the District Bar Association of Noida were billed under the LMV-1 category. The argument contended that the imposition of varying rates in different regions of the state is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Court’s observation emphasized that when words are used within the same context, they should draw meaning from one another. Since the occupation of lawyers doesn’t fall under the LMV-2 category designated for ‘non-domestic’ activities, for them to be billed under that schedule, an activity of a similar nature must be demonstrated.

Citing the verdict in M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. v. Shiv Narayan Chopra and the Bar Council Rules, the Court based its decision on the understanding that the legal profession lacks a commercial essence, thereby negating the imposition of commercial tariff rates on lawyers.

The Court further pointed out that even though the LMV-2 rates are intended for ‘non-domestic’ users, the stated categories partake in commercial undertakings associated with trade or business. Consequently, these rates cannot be imposed on lawyers’ chambers. The Court maintained that earlier circulars mandating LMV-1 rates for the legal profession and the judiciary will be relevant for lawyers’ chambers situated within court premises.

Addressing the disparity in rates between Gautam Budh Nagar and Ghaziabad, the Court acknowledged that the UP Electricity Regulatory Commission is accountable for tariff rates in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, it was established that “the respondents are not permitted to differentiate between the electricity supply to advocates’ chambers in different court premises within the same State, especially when the rate schedules are sanctioned by the same governing authority.”

In line with this reasoning, the writ petition was granted approval.

“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.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani