Taxation Law - GST – Refund – Zero-Rated Supply – Eligibility of Exporters – Petitioners, being 100% Export Oriented Units, exported goods without payment of tax under Letter of Undertaking and claimed refund of unutilised input tax credit under Rule 89(4) of GST Rules – Authorities denied refund on ground that claim should have been filed under Rule 89(4A) applicable to deemed exports – Held: Petitioners made zero-rated exports and were not recipients of deemed exports – Refund denial on said ground unjustified – Rule 89(4) rightly invoked by petitioners [Paras 48-56]

GST – Circular Interpretation – Para 2.2 of CBIC Circular No.172/04/2022-GST – Non-Applicability – Circular barred inclusion of ITC on deemed export supplies in refund calculation under Rule 89(4) and (5) – Held: Petitioners were not deemed exporters, nor had suppliers claimed any such status or refund – Circular not applicable to facts – Refund denial relying on para 2.2 untenable [Paras 51-54]

Deemed Export vs. Export – Statutory Distinction – Petitioners exported goods outside India and received consideration in convertible foreign exchange – Supplies to petitioners were not notified as deemed exports under Section 147 and procedures under Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST not followed – Therefore, refund claims not governed by Rule 89(4A) or deemed export provisions [Paras 49-55]

Review and Recovery – Section 107(2) and Section 73 – Academic Issue – Since refund entitlement upheld on merits, Court declined to rule on legality of review under Section 107(2) or recovery proceedings under Section 73 without appeal – Issue kept open for future adjudication [Para 58]

Decision: All refund denial and recovery orders across the five writ petitions quashed and set aside – Respondents directed to pay refund amounts in accordance with law within 12 weeks – Constitutional challenge to Circular No.172/04/2022-GST and retrospective applicability of circular not decided – Rule made absolute [Paras 59-60]

Service Law – Regularization – Seniority – Discriminatory denial of parity with juniors – Committee’s earlier favourable recommendation ignored without reason – Second meeting convened without justification – State’s contradictory stand regarding appointment of private respondents – Condition denying seniority struck down earlier – Held: Action arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 & 16; petitioner entitled to regularization benefits at par with juniors [Paras 6–11].

Administrative Law – Committee Proceedings – Once a committee resolves an issue by majority, recall of meeting without reason impermissible – Subsequent minutes authored individually but shown as collective decision – Such colourable exercise of power vitiated – Impugned order quashed [Paras 8–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before law – State action must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory – Reliance placed on Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721 – State’s inconsistent justification and selective denial of benefits held unconstitutional [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 30.09.2015 quashed – Authorities directed to grant regularization and consequential benefits to the petitioner at par with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 [Para 11–12].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Mandatory Service of Notice – Jurisdictional Error – Notices under Sections 148 and 142(1) issued on obsolete e-mail despite assessee updating communication details – Held: Service of notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent and must be effected strictly as per Section 282 read with Rule 127 – Absence of valid service renders entire reassessment void – Subsequent ex parte assessment and penalty orders also vitiated [Paras 18–23, 27–28].

Electronic Service – E-Portal Upload Not Equivalent to Service – Revenue’s contention that placing notice on e-portal amounts to deemed service rejected – Assessee cannot be expected to keep portal open continuously – Section 144B(6) introduced later cannot cure defective service – Principles of natural justice violated [Paras 24–25].

Change of Address/E-Mail – Duty of Assessing Officer – Once assessee updated profile (transaction ID 8705745824) and Department acknowledged the change, Revenue obligated to communicate only on updated e-mail – Failure to check latest communication details invalidates proceedings – Legitimate expectation applies [Paras 12–13, 19–20].

Burden of Proof – Service of Notice – Onus on Revenue to prove valid service under Section 148 – Revenue failed to show service on registered/updated address – Participation or later knowledge does not amount to waiver – Section 292BB not applicable once objection raised [Paras 21–23].

Reassessment Proceedings – Void Ab Initio – Invalid service under Section 148 vitiates entire chain of proceedings including reassessment under Section 147/144/144B and penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(b) & 271(1)(c) – Cases remanded for fresh proceedings after due opportunity [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Notices under Sections 148 and 142(1), reassessment order dated 29.03.2022, demand notice, and penalty orders set aside – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to pass fresh order after hearing the assessee – Parties directed to appear on 28.11.2025.

Compassionate Appointment – Delay of nine years – SBI scheme withdrawn w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Death in 2003 but application filed in 2012 – Financial crisis long tided over – No vested right to appointment – Prayer rejected – Bank directed to process ex-gratia claim on submission of documents and to release family pension arrears without life certificate [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Delay and Laches – Father died in harness in 2003; petitioner attained majority in 2011 and applied in 2012; scheme for compassionate appointment withdrawn by SBI w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Held: application filed nearly nine years after death defeats the very object of compassionate appointment which is to alleviate immediate financial crisis – Petitioner’s family having survived the crisis, no right to appointment survives; rejection of request upheld [Paras 10–13].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Scheme – Petitioner argued that scheme prevalent at time of death (2003) should apply – Court: even under earlier scheme, application filed after inordinate delay cannot be entertained in view of principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Purpose is not employment by succession but immediate relief; delayed claim not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Ex-Gratia Compensation – SBI Scheme – Petitioner alternatively sought ex-gratia lump sum payment – SBI required certain additional documents (letter dated 15.12.2018) – Held: petitioner to furnish required documents within six weeks; SBI to decide claim within three months and either release admissible amount or communicate a reasoned order [Para 14].

Family Pension – Arrears – Petitioner entitled to arrears of family pension from February 2018 to July 2018 – Since matter remained pending before Court, arrears to be paid without insisting on a life certificate for that period; direction issued to release payment within three months [Para 15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Claim for compassionate appointment rejected – Directions issued for processing ex-gratia claim and release of family pension arrears [Para 16].

Sales Tax – Definition of Dealer – Club Activity – Profit Motive – Not Established – Exemption Granted – Respondent Hyderabad Race Club engaged primarily in horse racing – Petitioner State contended that activities like sale of oats, tender forms, and food items amounted to business – Held: Club not operating with profit motive – Transactions incidental to charitable purpose – Not a “dealer” under Section 2(e) of APGST Act – Tribunal’s view upheld [Paras 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 39].

Tax Classification – Cattle Feed – Oats Sold to Horse Trainers – Whether Taxable as General Goods or Concessional Cattle Feed – Held: Oats fall within definition of Cattle Feed under Entry 80 – Tax at Concessional Rate Applicable – Horses legally classified as cattle under Cattle Trespass Act – Oats used solely as feed – Entry 80 applicable – Reclassification as “general goods” rejected [Paras 6, 14–17, 27–31, 40–42].

Point of Taxation – First Point of Sale – Whether Taxable on Purchase or Sale Value – Held: Tax to be Levied on Subsidised Sale Value – Respondent sold oats to trainers for ₹10.66 lakhs against purchase price of ₹52.30 lakhs – Entry 80 prescribes tax at first point of sale – Tax to be calculated on sale value [Paras 6, 18, 42].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Liberal and Purposeful Interpretation of Entry 80 – Broader Scope Includes Feed for Livestock and Horses – Court held Entry 80 to include all livestock feed – Subsequent legislative amendments (Entries 80A, 80B) show earlier inclusion of various feed types in Entry 80 – No narrow interpretation permitted – Supported by judicial precedents and dictionary definitions [Paras 20–26, 43].

Burden of Proof – State Failed to Disprove Classification – Tribunal Order Justified – Respondent presented sufficient documentary and expert evidence supporting oats as cattle feed – State failed to show contrary – Tribunal rightly upheld concessional rate and rejected full taxation on purchase value [Paras 11, 18, 41, 44].

Decision: Tax Revision Cases dismissed – Orders of STAT upheld – Respondent not a dealer – Oats taxable under Entry 80 as cattle feed – Tax payable on actual sale value, not purchase value [Paras 45–46].

Income-tax – Search and Seizure – Section 153C – Jurisdiction – Search conducted at petitioner’s residential premises pursuant to warrant under Section 132 – Statement recorded and panchanama drawn – Satisfaction note prepared treating petitioner as an “other person” – Held: Person whose premises are searched and from whom documents are seized is a “searched person” – Proceedings under Section 153C against such person are illegal and without jurisdiction.

Income-tax – Section 153C vis-à-vis Section 153A – Distinction between “searched person” and “other person” – Mere issuance of warrant in the name of another does not alter the status of the person whose premises are actually searched – Substance of search decisive – Petitioner could only be proceeded against, if at all, under Section 153A and not under Section 153C.

Income-tax – Preconditions for invoking Section 153C – Requirement of incriminating material belonging to a person other than the searched person – Absence of such condition in the present case – Initiation of proceedings held to be bad in law.

Judicial Precedent – Binding nature – Issue squarely covered by judgment of the coordinate Bench in C.R. Ram Mohan Raju v. DCIT, affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court – Consistency in interpretation of Section 153C maintained.

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned notice dated 16.09.2020 issued under Section 153C for Assessment Year 2018-19 quashed – All consequential assessment orders, penalty proceedings and demand notices set aside.

Criminal Law – Bail – SC/ST (PoA) Act – Delay in Filing Complaint – Appellant accused of repeated sexual assault and offences under BNSS, IT Act, and SC/ST Act – FIR lodged after nearly two years of alleged incident – Charge sheet not filed even after 60 days of arrest – Appellant in custody – Held: Delay in filing FIR unexplained – No further custodial interrogation required – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 483 BNSS – Bail Rejection by Sessions Court – Set Aside – Appellant alleged victim’s complaint was an afterthought and motivated by extortion attempt – Investigation not yielding further material – Held: No justification for continued incarceration – Sessions Judge’s order rejecting bail set aside [Paras 3, 6, 7]

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Rule 7(2) – Delay in Charge Sheet – Charge sheet not filed within statutory period after arrest – Appellant in judicial custody without prosecution progress – Held: Procedural lapses and delay favour bail – Conditions imposed to safeguard trial [Paras 7]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 03/10/2025 of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District set aside – Bail granted to the appellant on executing self-bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety for like amount – Appellant not to tamper with witnesses or indulge in similar offences [Order portion]

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Protected Tenancy – Statutory Purchase – Sections 32G & 32M – Effect of Mutation Entries – Exclusive Title – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Plaintiff (sister) filed suit for partition in 2002 claiming suit property as joint family property inherited from parents who died in 1949 and 1978 – Evidence showed that defendant Krishnabai became protected tenant in 1957 and purchase was duly completed in 1961 after statutory inquiry, issuance of 32G order, fixation of purchase price, and issuance of sale certificate under 32M – Held: Once purchase under 32G/32M fructifies, title statutorily vests in tenant and property ceases to form part of estate of predecessors – Civil Court cannot ignore binding statutory orders – Concurrent findings contrary to statutory record unsustainable [Paras 5.1–5.4, 10–12, 15–16, 25–26].

Tenancy Law – Representative Capacity – Claim of Joint Family Cultivation – No Evidence – Plaintiff failed to prove that Krishnabai’s protected tenancy was in representative capacity for entire family – No evidence of joint cultivation, sharing of produce, or admission by tenant/landlord as required under Ramakant Ganesh Naik precedent – On contrary, evidence and revenue records (Exhs. 41–50) show exclusive cultivation by Krishnabai for decades – Held: Property not proved to be joint family property – Ratio of Ramakant Ganesh Naik inapplicable; reliance misconceived [Paras 12–15, 22–23].

Limitation – Partition Suit – Articles 65-B & 110 – Plaintiff silent from 1957 to 2002 – No steps to challenge mutation, 32G order, or 32M sale certificate despite public notices and statutory proceedings – First challenge raised only via suit in 2002, nearly 41 years after vesting of title – Held: Suit hopelessly barred; plea of exclusion within 12 years unproved – Mere assertion of proposal for partition unsupported by evidence – Plaintiff’s witness admitted complete absence of proof of joint possession – Limitation bars the suit [Paras 16–17, 19–24, 26].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Sections 85 & 85-A, BT&AL Act – When Bar Applies – Findings of tenancy authorities under 32G/32M are binding – Civil Court cannot reopen or disregard statutory vesting – Trial Court ought to have declined jurisdiction or referred matter appropriately – Failure to consider statutory bar constitutes legal infirmity warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 6.4–6.6, 25–26].

Statutory Proceedings – Public Notice – Non-challenge – Plaintiff’s long silence – Sale certificate shows public notices, individual notices, and participation of interested persons – Plaintiff neither objected nor appealed under tenancy law – Challenge before SDO in 2002 stood rejected – Held: Plaintiff estopped from disputing statutory vesting of title in 1961 [Paras 18–21, 23].

Substantial Questions of Law – Answered in Appellant’s Favour – Courts below ignored binding statutory orders under 32G/32M and misapplied principles of joint family property and limitation – High Court sets aside both judgments [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments dated 08.02.2006 and 21.01.2017 set aside – Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 dismissed – Record to be returned to Trial Court after appeal period – Parties may act on server copy [Paras 27–30].

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Concurrent Findings – Appellant (Defendant) challenged the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land for ₹2,00,000/- – Plaintiff proved payment of ₹1,80,000/- earnest money and execution of agreement via marginal witness and scribe – Defendant admitted signatures but claimed they were obtained on blank papers as security for a loan which was repaid – Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit – High Court upheld the findings – Held: No substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC [Paras 1, 8, 15].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Defense of Blank Papers – Defendant admitted signatures on the agreement (Ex. P3/PW1) but alleged misuse of blank papers given as security – Plaintiff adduced credible evidence through PW-2 (marginal witness) and PW-3 (scribe) proving due execution and payment of earnest money – Defendant’s claim remained a self-serving assertion without corroborative evidence – Court observed it is improbable for a person of ordinary prudence to repay a loan without retrieving signed blank papers – Adverse inference drawn against the Defendant – Execution of agreement held proved [Paras 12-13].

Contract Law – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff attended the Tehsil Complex on the stipulated date with balance consideration and swore an affidavit regarding his presence – Defendant failed to appear – Plaintiff sent legal notice requiring performance – Held: Plaintiff successfully established readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – Defendant found to be in breach [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the courts below affirmed.