Taxation Law - Sales Tax – Trademark – Assignment of Intangible Asset – Situs of Trademark – Transaction Held as Export – Not Taxable Under State Sales Tax Law – Brand Acquisition Agreement transferring ownership of registered trademark ‘Crocin’ from Indian company to UK-based entity executed in London – Held: Trademark, being an intangible asset, follows owner’s situs – Application of principle of mobilia sequuntur personam – Since assignee is based in UK, assignment deemed as sale in course of export under Section 5(1) of CST Act – State not entitled to levy local sales tax under BST Act [Paras 36–38, 45]

Indirect Taxation – Central Sales Tax Act – Section 5(1) – Meaning of Export – No Physical Movement Required for Intangibles – Intangible Asset May ‘Move’ Juridically With Owner – Court held that the word “goods” under CST Act includes intangibles – Movement of such asset not necessarily physical – Deeming fiction applies when trademark assigned to foreign entity – Assignment amounts to export even without physical translocation across borders [Paras 30–31, 38, 41]

Intellectual Property – Assignment of Trademark – Registration Not Mandatory for Valid Transfer – Legal Title Transfers Upon Execution – Relying on Sun Pharmaceuticals and Parksons Cartamundi, Court held that assignment is complete upon execution; registration with Registrar of Trademarks not prerequisite for validity – Ownership passes immediately upon assignment even if registration occurs later [Paras 18(c), 44]

Sales Tax – Situs of Trademark – Registration Location Irrelevant – Ownership Determines Jurisdiction – Tribunal erred in treating location of trademark registration (India) as determinant of situs – Held: For intangible property, situs is determined by owner’s location – Decision of Tribunal overturned [Paras 17, 36–37, 43]

Constitutional Law – Article 286 – Bar on State Taxation of Export Sales – CST Act to Be Harmoniously Construed with Constitutional Scheme – Court emphasized that CST Act (Sections 3–5) must be interpreted in line with Article 286 – State barred from taxing sales in course of export – Harmonious construction of provisions ensures consistency in treatment of tangibles and intangibles under tax laws [Paras 30–31, 32–35]

Decision: Reference answered in favour of Applicant – Assignment of trademark ‘Crocin’ deemed to be in course of export under Section 5(1) of CST Act – Not a local sale within State of Maharashtra – Not liable to 4% sales tax under BST Act – Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 2012 disposed of accordingly. [Paras 45–46]

Income Tax – Faceless Assessment – Section 144B – Violation – Petitioners challenged assessment orders passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers despite statutory mandate of faceless assessment under amended provisions effective 01.04.2021 – Held: Assessment orders issued without following faceless regime are invalid – Quashed as contrary to Section 144B and Finance Act, 2021 – Proceedings held to be procedurally illegal [Paras 23-25, 28].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to Respond – Show Cause Notice – Petitioners provided detailed replies and evidence for disputed transactions – However, disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not specified in SCN – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice as additions and disallowances were made without adequate disclosure or opportunity to counter [Paras 6-11, 19, 22].

Income Tax – Addition under Section 68 – Advances from Customers – Assessing Officer treated land-related advances as unexplained credits – Petitioner furnished confirmations, PANs, addresses – AO failed to conduct independent verification – Held: Rejection of detailed documentary evidence without verification or issuance of notices under Section 133(6) is arbitrary – Assessment not sustainable [Paras 5-10, 21].

Income Tax – Disallowance under Section 40A(3) – Cash Transactions – Final assessment included disallowance for cash payments exceeding limit, not quantified in prior notices – Held: Lack of prior intimation vitiates disallowance – Addition made without prior disclosure violates mandatory procedure [Paras 6, 10-11].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – High Court quashed assessment orders in all four writ petitions for being contrary to statutory mandate of faceless assessment and denial of fair hearing – Consequential orders also set aside [Paras 25-31].

Decision:

Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned assessment orders and all consequential orders set aside – Held to be contrary to provisions of Section 144B and violative of natural justice – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Last Seen Theory – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Govind last seen alive with accused Ashok Kumar and his two accomplices (identified later as Gore @ Ujagar Singh and Ramdas) on 9.4.1983 at 8:30 PM – Dead body recovered on 10.4.1983 at 2 PM – Post-mortem confirmed death by strangulation around 11 PM on 9.4.1983 – Held: Narrow time gap between last seen and death established a strong presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused failed to offer any explanation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent with guilt of accused [Paras 62–69].

Evidence – Recovery of Property – Tractor and Trolley – Tractor No. URB-7911 recovered from Tabarak Ali to whom it was sold by Akil Ahmed in presence of accused Ashok Kumar – Trolley recovered from Sonipat – Accused failed to explain how tractor reached Akil Ahmed – Presence of Ashok Kumar at sale established nexus with misappropriation – Recovery of bricks loaded on tractor from house of Ramdas – Though not stolen property, concealment showed intent to erase trail – Held: Recovery further corroborates involvement of accused in post-murder conduct [Paras 58, 59, 61(ix–xii), 61(xiv–xix)].

Identification Evidence – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Defence claimed identification unreliable due to delay and single witness identification – Court held: TIP not substantive evidence but corroborative – Parade conducted with due precautions and delay not fatal in absence of cross-examination of IO or Magistrate – Identification in court by PW-1 and PW-2 supported TIP – Held: Identification of accused Gore and Ramdas legally sustainable [Paras 65–74].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Delay – FIR registered on 15.4.1983 though written complaint given on 12.4.1983 – Court found delay justified due to informant’s genuine search for son and subsequent identification of dead body – No suggestion of false implication – Conviction upheld [Paras 61(iv–v), 61(xxi–xxii), 74].

Criminal Law – Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused Failed to Explain Circumstances of Departure from Company of Deceased – Tractor and bricks traced to their knowledge and presence – Non-explanation by accused treated as additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Conviction sustained [Paras 68–69].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 201, and 404 IPC affirmed – Accused Ashok Kumar and Ramdas directed to surrender – Trial court to initiate coercive steps in case of failure – Compliance to be reported within two months [Paras 75–78].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279 & 304A IPC – Accused convicted for causing death of a pillion rider by driving autorickshaw rashly and negligently – Courts below relied on consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses (PWs 1, 3, 4), spot sketch (Ex.P11), inquest and post-mortem reports – Held: Conviction based on credible evidence – Defence of victim’s negligence rejected – No perversity or illegality in concurrent findings of lower courts [Paras 14, 20–23].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Revision – Section 397 CrPC – Revision not a substitute for appeal – Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is grave illegality or manifest error – Held: No error found in appreciation of evidence by trial and appellate courts – Interference in revision not warranted [Paras 10–13, 21].

Sentencing – Section 304A IPC – Adequacy and Proportionality – Accused sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment by appellate court – Plea for leniency under Probation of Offenders Act rejected – Held: In view of binding precedents (Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka; Saurabh Bakshi v. State of Punjab), deterrent punishment justified in motor accident deaths – Sentence of 6 months appropriate and commensurate to offence [Paras 27–31].

Motor Accidents – Responsibility of Professional Drivers – Supreme Court emphasized duty of care by professional drivers – Laxity or momentary negligence can have devastating social consequences – Held: In cases of death due to rash driving, liberal sentencing policies are not justified – Courts must uphold collective conscience and safety standards [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Conviction and sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment under Section 304A IPC upheld – No scope for interference with concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts – Plea under Probation of Offenders Act rejected [Para 31].

Criminal Law – Illegal Detention – Chapter Proceedings under Section 107 CrPC – Executive Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Executive Magistrate passed order remanding petitioner to judicial custody in Chapter Case under Section 107 – Held: Magistrate had no authority under CrPC to remand person to custody in such proceedings – Detention for 7 days was unlawful and violated petitioner’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Compensation of ₹1,00,000 awarded to petitioner – State given liberty to recover from erring officer [Paras 10–13, 18]

Judicial Accountability – Misuse of Power – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act – Executive Magistrate claimed immunity under Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act for remanding petitioner – Held: Power exercised under Section 107 CrPC is executive in nature – Act of Magistrate not judicial or quasi-judicial – Protection under Section 3 not applicable – Respondent No. 3 personally liable for excess of jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Illegal detention by public authority – Petitioner detained without show cause notice or lawful order – Held: Violation of Article 21 – Compensation a necessary public remedy for infringement of fundamental right – State directed to pay and recover from officer responsible [Paras 13–14, 17–18]

Constitutional Law – Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petition under Article 226 maintainable – Petitioner entitled to monetary compensation for illegal arrest and unauthorized detention in breach of statutory safeguards – Compensation awarded despite absence of malice – Focus is on consequences of rights violation, not intention [Paras 14, 17]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed –

(a) State of Maharashtra directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to petitioner within 4 weeks.

(b) Liberty granted to State to recover said amount from respondent no. 3 (Tahsildar).

(c) Rule made absolute.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Decree of Divorce Granted – Appellant alleged repeated abusive conduct by wife, threats of suicide, denial of physical relationship, and desertion without cause – Family Court dismissed petition citing isolated nature of incidents and unclean hands due to dowry allegations – Held: Cumulative effect of wife’s behaviour including verbal abuse, threats of false criminal charges, and persistent withdrawal from cohabitation amounted to mental cruelty – Appellant's evidence consistent and largely unshaken – Divorce granted under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA [Paras 1, 3, 17, 20, 23–25]

Family Law – Clean Hands Doctrine – Section 23(1)(a) HMA – Appellant denied relief by Family Court on ground of unclean hands due to dowry harassment allegations – Held: Allegations by wife were belated and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence – FIR and other proceedings initiated only after divorce petition – No credible material to show petitioner’s conduct constituted matrimonial offence – Principle of clean hands wrongly invoked – Not a bar to relief [Paras 18, 21–22]

Family Law – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Allegation of Sexual Misconduct by In-Law – Wife alleged attempted molestation by father-in-law – Parties living separately since 2020 – No child from marriage – Held: Allegation strikes at core of family trust and makes restoration of marital harmony impossible – Relationship has broken down irreparably – Compelling parties to continue in such marriage serves no legal or societal purpose – Divorce granted [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 20/03/2025 of Family Court set aside – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Registry directed to draw up decree sheet – No orders as to costs.

Partition Suit – Maintainability of Revision – Article 227 – Order Accepting Partition Commissioner’s Report – Held: A revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order accepting the Partition Commissioner’s Report if the final decree is yet to be passed – The order accepting the Commissioner’s Report, without drawing up of final decree, does not constitute a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is not independently appealable under Section 96 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC – Once final decree is passed working out rights of parties, it becomes appealable – Held: Interlocutory order accepting Commissioner’s Report can be challenged under Article 227 to prevent denial of remedy where appeal does not lie [Paras 1, 4, 8, 22, 24, 30]

Civil Procedure – Partition Decree – Distinction Between Preliminary and Final Decree – Reiterated that a preliminary decree declares rights of co-sharers, while a final decree works out those rights through metes and bounds division – Until final decree is passed, rights are not conclusively determined, and execution cannot proceed – Court must follow Order 26 Rule 14(3) CPC before passing a final decree [Paras 11–16, 22–23]

Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction – Challenge to Acceptance of Commission Report – Reiterated: No appeal lies from an order merely accepting Commissioner’s Report unless it culminates in a final decree – Party aggrieved may challenge such order under Article 227 – Section 105 CPC permits challenge in appeal from final decree if no separate appeal lies earlier – Prior decisions in Sanat Kumar Dey and Papy George do not preclude Article 227 remedy [Paras 24, 26–30]

Decision: Application under Article 227 held maintainable – Civil Revision Applications to be de-tagged and heard on merits by appropriate bench – Issue of substantive challenge to Commissioner’s Report to be considered upon further hearing [Paras 30–32]

Civil Law – Substitution – Delay Condonation – No Requirement That Delay Application Must Precede or Accompany Substitution Application – Application for substitution of deceased defendant filed belatedly – Separate delay condonation application filed later – Trial court condoned delay and allowed substitution – Held: Formal delay application not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown and Court is satisfied – Delay condonation under Section 5 Limitation Act permissible even if filed subsequently – No legal bar to consider both applications together [Paras 12–13, 16]

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Suit – No Separate Application to Set Aside Abatement Required If Relief Is Implicit – Suit abated under Article 120 of Limitation Act after expiry of 90 days from date of death of defendant – Plaintiff did not file separate application to set aside abatement – Held: Substitution application containing prayer for bringing legal representatives on record can be treated as implied request to set aside abatement – Technical plea rejected – Courts should adopt liberal and justice-oriented approach [Paras 17–20]

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Sufficiency of Cause – Discretion of Court – Court satisfied with explanation that Power of Attorney holder was out of station – Delay not deliberate or mala fide – Held: Court rightly exercised discretion under Section 5 Limitation Act – Delay condonation proper [Paras 23, 25]

Civil Procedure – Revision under Section 115 CPC – Limited Scope – Non-speaking or unreasoned order not by itself a ground for interference – Unless failure of justice or irreparable injury shown, revisional interference unwarranted – Trial court order allowing substitution and amendment upheld [Paras 21–22]

Civil Procedure – Liberal Construction in Substitution Matters – Order XXII Rule 10A CPC – Obligation on counsel to inform Court of death – Intention of legislature is to ensure substitution matters are not defeated by procedural delay – Courts must adopt realistic and equitable approach [Para 24]

Decision: Revision dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2024 of trial court upheld – Delay condonation and substitution application valid – No separate application to set aside abatement required – No costs.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Conspiracy and Murder – Rejection – Appellants accused of providing finance and dangerous weapons to co-accused for eliminating the deceased (Santhosh Kumar @ Kanuma) – Charged under BNS, Arms Act, and SC/ST Act – Trial court rejected bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS – High Court affirmed the rejection, noting that providing logistics and finance for murder is as grave as direct involvement – Held: Prima facie materials exist to attract the commission of the alleged offence; bail rejected due to the heinous nature of the crime and likelihood of witness tampering [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Conspiracy – Role of Accused – Financial Aid and Weapon Supply – Charge sheet (Column 17) detailed the specific roles of the accused in a conspiracy to murder the deceased due to prior enmity – Appellants (Accused 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20) allegedly provided funds and weapons (long knives/machhu) – Court observed that the materials prima facie establish participation in the conspiracy – The role of funding and arming the perpetrators is grave and disentitles the accused to bail [Paras 6-7, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parity Principle – Non-Applicability – Co-ordinate Bench had granted bail to Accused No. 17 and Accused No. 15 in separate petitions – Appellants sought release on grounds of parity – Court held that despite the release of co-accused, the specific roles of the present appellants in facilitating the crime warranted detention – Parity cannot be the sole ground when prima facie material points to involvement in a heinous offence punishable with death or life imprisonment [Para 8].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere confirmed – Bail rejected.