Civil Law - Partition Suit – Final Decree in Partition – Section 96, CPC and Orders 20 Rule 12 & 26 Rule 13 CPC – Appeal partly allowed – The appeal was filed by the defendant challenging the division of agricultural land and residential house finalized in a decree – The Court held that while the Commissioner’s report was overall valid, the irrigation facilities required equitable modification – Bore-wells, though situated in the portion allotted to the plaintiff, were directed to be treated as common along with the open well, ensuring access to water resources for both parties – The division of residential house by horizontal partition was upheld, considering equitable division without prejudice to possession rights [Paras 1-22].

Irrigation Rights – Common Use of Water Resources – Section 96 CPC – Modification Directed – The Court noted that the open well was already declared common, but additional bore-wells crucial for irrigation were solely allotted to the plaintiff – To ensure fairness and agricultural sustainability, the Court modified the decree, directing shared use of bore-wells and ensuring unhindered water passage between properties – Held: Right to irrigation is a crucial civil right warranting equitable access in partition proceedings [Paras 15-21].

Residential Property – Division Despite Possession – Partition Suit – The appellant's contention to exclusively retain the residential house was rejected – The Court observed that long-term residence did not extinguish the plaintiff’s right – Horizontal division was upheld based on Commissioner’s report ensuring both parties received equitable share including access to roadways – Demolition was avoided by suggesting minimal structural alteration for effective division [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Court modified final decree concerning irrigation rights by making bore-wells common to both parties while upholding the division of house property and agricultural land – No costs awarded – Connected civil miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 21-22].

Civil Law - Section 2, 3 and 17 of the Indian Stamp Act  - Stamp Duty – Valuation Date – Market Value on Date of Sale Deed Relevant – Divergence Resolved – The Division Bench answered the reference on the issue of stamp duty valuation under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Held that for purposes of determining the stamp duty on a conveyance/sale deed, the relevant market value is that prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed, and not the date of agreement to sell – Judgment in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case held not good law – Reference answered accordingly [Paras 1, 10-12].

Interpretation – Charging Section vs. Transaction – Stamp Duty Payable on Instrument, Not Transaction – Section 3 of the 1899 Act makes stamp duty chargeable on the “instrument” and not on the underlying transaction – The nature of transaction may be relevant only for determining the type of instrument, but the charge is on the instrument itself [Para 5].

Binding Precedents – Harvinder Pal Singla Overruled – Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association’s Case Distinguished – The Court held that the view taken in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case is not valid since it relied on a precedent that was inapplicable to conveyance deeds – Held: Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association's case pertained to assignment of lease, not conveyance of ownership [Paras 7-9, 11].

Supreme Court Authority – Khandaka Jain Jewellers Followed – Prevailing Market Rate at Time of Sale Deed Controls – The Division Bench relied upon the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, where the Supreme Court held that stamp duty is to be computed on the basis of market value as on date of execution of sale deed – Also followed Shanti Bhushan v. State of U.P. reaffirming this position [Paras 6, 10].

Final Decision – Reference Answered – Market Value on Date of Execution Relevant – Division Bench held that the correct legal position is that market rate applicable at the time of execution of the sale deed governs the stamp duty – Reference disposed of accordingly [Para 12].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act - Faceless Reassessment – Legality of Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers Post 01.04.2021 – Reassessment Notices Quashed – The High Court allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers after 01.04.2021 in cases assigned to Central Charges – Held: As per the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, the reassessment proceedings initiated after 01.04.2021 are mandatorily required to be conducted in a faceless manner by the National Faceless Assessment Centre – The exemption from faceless assessments under Section 144B is confined to assessment orders under Section 143(3) and 144, and does not extend to reassessment notices under Section 148 – Notices issued by JAOs without following the mandatory faceless procedure are void ab initio and liable to be quashed [Paras 17-31].

Jurisdiction – Distinction Between Final Assessment and Reassessment Proceedings – Assignment to Central Charges Not a Valid Ground to Bypass Faceless Procedure – The Court clarified that the exemption granted under Section 144B(7) to cases assigned to Central Charges applies exclusively to final assessment orders – There is no exemption provided in Section 148 or Section 151A for reassessment notices in such cases – Consequently, reassessment notices issued manually by JAOs without routing through the faceless system violate the statutory mandate of Section 151A read with the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 [Paras 19-24].

Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Judgment in Ashish Agarwal’s Case – Court followed the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, reaffirming that all reassessment proceedings post 01.04.2021 must comply with the amended provisions – Dismissed the Revenue’s reliance on divergent views of other High Courts and affirmed the binding effect of the Telangana High Court’s previous decision in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy’s case holding similar notices invalid [Paras 18-27].

Statutory Interpretation – Strict Application of Section 151A – No Exception for Central Charges – The Court adopted a strict interpretation of Section 151A, noting it prescribes faceless reassessment without carve-outs for cases assigned to Central Charges – Clarified that administrative circulars or CBDT orders cannot override statutory provisions – Held: Since the statutory scheme does not exempt Section 148 proceedings from faceless mechanism, notices issued by JAOs stand vitiated [Paras 28-30].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Reassessment Notices Set Aside – The impugned notices issued under Section 148 by jurisdictional officers post 01.04.2021 were quashed and set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory faceless procedure – Court declined to impose costs but directed the Revenue to proceed strictly in accordance with law in future reassessment proceedings [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act – Conviction Upheld – The petitioner was convicted for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of NI Act—Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld conviction relying on presumption under Section 139 as petitioner admitted issuance of cheque and failed to rebut presumption through credible defence evidence—Petitioner’s plea of cheque issued to Anu Kumari held unsubstantiated—Revision petition dismissed [Paras 1-46].

Burden of Proof – Reverse Onus – Issuance of Cheque Admitted – Petitioner’s admission of issuance of cheque activated statutory presumption—Court reiterated that onus lies on accused to rebut presumption by leading cogent evidence—Mere denial or unsubstantiated claim insufficient to rebut legal presumption under Section 139 NI Act [Paras 19-20, 23-25, 29].

Notice of Demand – Valid Service Presumed – Validity of notice established through acknowledgment receipt—Presumption under Section 27 of Evidence Act invoked—Held: Accused failed to rebut presumption of valid service and neglected payment within statutory period [Paras 37-39].

No Proof of Defence – Mere Statement under Section 313 CrPC Insufficient – Court reiterated that mere denial in statement under Section 313 CrPC without leading defence evidence does not rebut presumption—Held: Petitioner’s defence was rightly rejected [Paras 29-31].

No Requirement to Prove Financial Capacity – Presumption Sufficient – Court relied on precedents to hold that complainant need not initially prove financial capacity unless specifically challenged—Petitioner failed to raise any valid defence on financial incapacity [Paras 32-34].

Appropriate Sentence – Deterrent Purpose of Section 138 NI Act – Court upheld sentence of two months imprisonment and fine of ₹2,90,000/- including ₹2,85,000/- compensation—Held: Sentence reasonable in light of deterrent purpose of the provision and prolonged litigation since 2019 [Paras 41-44].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed—Petitioner’s revision found devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 46-47].

Taxation Law - Section 9(1)(vii), Explanation 2; Section 147, Section 144C, Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - DTAA Interpretation – ‘Make Available’ Condition – No Transfer of Technical Knowledge – Non-Taxability under Article 13 – The Court held that receipts from GIPL for providing access to an e-invoicing platform do not qualify as Fees for Technical Services under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA – Services rendered by the Assessee did not result in transfer of technical knowledge, skill, or know-how to GIPL – GIPL did not acquire any ability to independently use or exploit the e-invoicing technology – Held: Payments received by the Assessee are not taxable under Article 13 of the DTAA [Paras 31-62].

Nature of E-Invoicing Services – License to Use Platform vs Transfer of Technology – Business Receipts Not FTS – The Assessee merely provided a non-exclusive license to use its proprietary platform to GIPL for generating e-invoices for GSK, without transferring source code or proprietary technology – Provision of such services, despite involving technological processes, did not involve transfer of technical knowledge or capability to GIPL – Held: The nature of services was not technical services under Article 13(4)(c) of DTAA [Paras 13-25, 50-55].

Training and Ancillary Services – Use-Based Training Does Not Satisfy ‘Make Available’ Criteria – The training provided to GIPL employees was limited to operational use of the platform and did not result in transfer of technical know-how or capability to independently render services – Mere operational training does not qualify as ‘making available’ technical knowledge – Held: Training clause in the agreement did not transform business receipts into FTS [Paras 54-61].

Overriding Effect of DTAA over Income Tax Act – Beneficial Treaty Provisions Applicable – The Court reaffirmed that under Section 90 of the Act, DTAA provisions prevail over domestic law if more beneficial to the assessee – Hence, the restrictive definition of FTS under the India-UK DTAA overrides the broader definition in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act – Held: Since services do not make technical knowledge available, no tax liability arises under domestic law or DTAA [Paras 28-30, 62].

Decision of the Court – Appeals Allowed – Tribunal and Lower Assessments Set Aside – The Court set aside the ITAT order and final assessment orders taxing receipts from GIPL as FTS, holding such receipts not chargeable to tax in India under the DTAA – Held: Appeals allowed, assessments quashed [Paras 62-63].

Service Law – Regularization of Casual Workers – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Petition Allowed – Petitioners engaged under Raiganj Municipality on fixed remuneration since 2006 pursuant to formal municipal resolutions—appointments made during absence of recruitment rules—petitioners rendered uninterrupted service for nearly two decades—Court held appointments not illegal but procedurally irregular—Held: Long-standing, bona fide service created legitimate expectation for regularization—State directed to regularize services of petitioners with immediate effect [Paras 1-35].

Municipal Employment – Recruitment Rules and Regularization – Distinction between Illegal and Irregular Appointments – Regularization Directed – Court held that prior to 12.09.2006, absence of codified recruitment process did not render such appointments illegal—appointments were made to meet administrative necessity by competent authorities—held to be irregular but legitimate—reference made to Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Prasanta Kumar Das case directing similar regularization—petitioners entitled to similar relief [Paras 26-29].

Recruitment Notification – Recruitment Process Stayed – Validity of Recruitment Challenged – Stay Order Upheld – Recruitment notice issued on 28.12.2019 stayed by coordinate Bench—Court noted recruitment should be conducted by Municipal Service Commission, not Chairman—Respondents failed to challenge interim stay—fresh recruitment stayed till regularization of petitioners [Paras 30-31].

Constitutional Mandate – Fairness in Public Employment – Right to Regularization Recognized – Relying on judgments in Jaggo v. Union of India, Narendra Kumar Tiwari, and District Bar Association Bandipora—Court held that long-standing, indispensable service mandates regularization under Articles 14 and 16—reliance placed on humanitarian and equitable considerations to prevent arbitrary exclusion of bona fide employees [Paras 32-35].

Decision: Petitions Allowed – Court held that petitioners’ appointments were not illegal but irregular and made under genuine administrative need—long-standing service combined with repeated requests for regularization created enforceable legitimate expectation—State directed to regularize services of petitioners immediately—Fresh recruitment process stayed—pending applications disposed of—no costs imposed [Paras 35-38].

Taxation Law – Income Tax Act - Reassessment Proceedings – Faceless Assessment – Finance Act, 2021 – Notices Quashed - The petitioners challenged the reassessment notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers post-01.04.2021 in cases categorized under ‘central charges,’ arguing the illegality of non-faceless proceedings under amended law – The Court reaffirmed that after the Finance Act, 2021, all reassessments under Section 148 must be conducted via faceless mechanism as mandated by Section 151A and the e-Assessment Scheme, 2022, except where explicitly excluded – It was held that the CBDT order dated 06.09.2021 excluded ‘assessment orders’ from faceless mechanism for central charges but did not exempt issuance of notice under Section 148 – The Court rejected revenue’s contention that reassessments arising out of search and seizure could be handled by JAO – Held: Notices issued by JAO post-01.04.2021 are invalid and quashed, reassessment must proceed through faceless route [Paras 3-30].

Principle of Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench – The Court observed that judgments of coordinate Benches are binding unless overruled – Despite reliance on Gujarat and Delhi High Court rulings by revenue, the Court adhered to its previous Division Bench decision in Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola which enforced faceless assessment in central charge cases – Reiterated that jurisdictional High Court precedents prevail over contrary decisions from other High Courts [Paras 23-27].

Interpretation of CBDT Notifications – Scope of Exemptions – The Court interpreted CBDT’s Order dated 06.09.2021 and Notification dated 29.03.2022 – Held: exemptions from faceless assessment apply only to passing of final assessment orders in central charge cases, not to the initiation of reassessment through Section 148 notices – This restrictive interpretation prevents misuse and ensures statutory faceless assessment objectives are upheld [Paras 20-22].

Section 153D Compliance – No Exception to Faceless Assessment – Court clarified that obligations under Section 153D concerning prior approval from Joint Commissioner do not create exceptions to faceless proceedings under Section 151A – Concluded that Section 151A remains applicable notwithstanding Section 153A/153D, and notices must follow the faceless process even in search cases [Paras 28-29].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The Court quashed all impugned notices issued by JAO under Section 148 in central charge cases after 01.04.2021 – Ordered reassessment, if initiated, to be done strictly via the faceless procedure – No order as to costs [Paras 30-31].

Writ – Tenancy Law - Mutation Entries – Delay in Challenge – Jurisdictional Defect – RTS Appeal Filed after 33 Years Without Condonation – Order of SDO Cancelled – Court held that challenge to Mutation Entry No.1201 dated 14.07.1962 by Gaikar family after lapse of 33 years without condonation of delay rendered the entire proceedings before SDO void ab initio – SDO assumed jurisdiction without first condoning delay, violating basic principles of law – Order dated 20.12.2001 passed by SDO is a nullity and was rightly set aside by the Additional Commissioner in Revision – Writ Petition of Gaikar family dismissed [Paras 10-12].

Effect of Mutation on Title – Mutation Entry is Not Conclusive of Ownership – Mutation Entry made for fiscal purposes – Determination of substantive ownership requires adjudication by Civil Court – Court reiterated settled principle that Mutation Entries cannot confer title – Gaikar family did not institute any civil proceedings for declaration of ownership and attempted to misuse RTS process – Appropriate remedy is by way of civil suit and not RTS appeal after inordinate delay [Paras 11, 14].

Tenancy Rights – Section 32G Proceedings Vitiated – Entire Proceedings Emanating from Nullified RTS Order Invalid – Section 32G purchase proceedings initiated by Gaikar family in 2002 based on the void SDO order dated 20.12.2001 are vitiated – Consequently, Section 32M certificate issued to Gaikar family set aside – MRT orders declining to condone delay rightly upheld – Mutation Entries 2473, 2474, 2475 directed to be deleted – Writ Petition of Adurkar family allowed [Paras 16-17].

Public Acquisition – Entitlement to Allotment Under 12.5% Scheme – CIDCO Directed to Allot Plot to Landlord Family – Court directed CIDCO to hand over earmarked plot and other acquisition benefits to Adurkar family, being recorded owners at the time of acquisition, within four weeks as per law [Para 18].

Future Remedy – Right to Civil Remedy Reserved – Court kept open liberty of parties to institute civil proceedings for declaration of rights if advised – RTS and tenancy orders not determinative of title – Civil Court jurisdiction preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2006 filed by Gaikar family dismissed – Writ Petition No. 10280 of 2023 filed by Adurkar family allowed – CIDCO to process allotment in favour of Adurkar family – Interim Applications disposed – Four-week stay on judgment granted to Gaikar family for approaching higher court [Paras 15-23].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 364, 384, 388, 342, 120B of IPC - Rejection on Grounds of Absconding – Section 482 BNSS – Custodial Interrogation Required – The applicant, a police officer, sought anticipatory bail after being accused of kidnapping, extortion and corruption – The Court observed the applicant was evading arrest since registration of FIR and was declared proclaimed offender – Held: Granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would hamper investigation – Application rejected [Paras 1-11, 19].

Police Officer Misconduct – Breach of Duty – Higher Scrutiny Applied – Serious Offences Involving Public Trust – The Court emphasized that police officers are duty-bound to protect citizens, and any involvement in grave offences like abduction and extortion violates public trust – Held: Considering the nature and gravity of offences and the material evidence collected, anticipatory bail was not permissible [Paras 10-11].

Abscondence and Defiance of Court Orders – Proclaimed Offender Proceedings – Court found that despite initiation of warrant and proclamation proceedings under Sections 70 and 82 CrPC, the applicant continued evading law – Such conduct disentitled him from discretionary relief under Section 482 BNSS [Paras 11-13].

No Exceptional Circumstance – Anticipatory Bail Denied in Serious Economic and Corruption Offences – The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments highlighting that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional cases – Held: Present case involves serious offences impacting societal interest, thus no ground to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS [Paras 14-18].

Final Decision – Application for Anticipatory Bail Rejected – Considering the conduct of the applicant, gravity of accusations, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail application was dismissed with liberty to not influence the main trial [Paras 19-20].