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].

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].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Married Daughter’s Succession Right – Hindu Succession Act Prevails – 1/3rd Share Granted - The appellant, daughter of the original propositus, filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in properties granted as occupancy rights – Trial Court dismissed the suit stating married daughter not a member of family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act – Held: Succession is governed by Hindu Succession Act, not KLR Act – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share – Purchasers from co-sharer held to be entitled only to vendor's limited share – Appeal partly allowed and decree of partition passed [Paras 1, 22-34].

Partition and Succession – Right of Married Daughter – Hindu Succession Act Overrides KLR Act – 1/3rd Share Decreed - Trial Court erred in holding that plaintiff was not entitled to share in agricultural land due to exclusion from “family” under Section 2(12) of KLR Act – Held: Hindu Succession Act governs intestate succession and overrides restrictive definition under KLR Act – Married daughter has equal right to inherit ancestral property – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share [Paras 22-30].

Adoption – Validity of Adoption Deed – Adoption of Defendant No.1 by Propositus Upheld - Adoption of Defendant No.1 by the propositus Basagouda supported by registered deed and oral evidence – Court accepted adoption as valid – Defendant No.1 held entitled to 1/3rd share as adopted son [Paras 31-32].

Joint Family Property – Grant of Occupancy Rights – Devolution Among Legal Heirs - Agricultural land granted under KLR Act in favour of father continues to be joint family property unless otherwise provided – All Class I legal heirs including daughters inherit equally – Held: Right of partition survives in favour of married daughter [Paras 25-28].

Bonafide Purchaser – Sale of 1/3rd Share by Adopted Son – Rights of Purchasers Protected - Defendants who purchased property from Defendant No.1 admitted they bought only 1/3rd share – Held: Purchasers are bonafide purchasers of co-sharer’s limited right – Cannot affect rights of other heirs – Their remedy lies against vendor alone [Paras 33-34].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Judgment and Decree Set Aside - Judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing suit set aside – Plaintiff granted 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties – Purchasers from co-sharer directed to work out remedy without affecting partition – No costs awarded [Para 34].

Criminal Law - Section 138 of the – Cheque Bounce - Expert Evidence – Request for Second Expert Opinion after Adverse Private Report – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought to refer signatures on the cheque to a Government Forensic Expert after already examining a private forensic expert whose opinion was discarded by the trial court – Court held that when the petitioner has already led forensic evidence and the report is on record, seeking a second expert opinion amounts to misuse of process – Held: Petition dismissed, no necessity to obtain further opinion once expert opinion already forms part of record [Paras 1-7, 13].

Fair Trial – Repeated Reference to Forensic Examination – Principle against Endless Litigation – Citing precedents including R. Bhaskar Reddy v. Chinni and Santhosh K.S. v. State of Kerala, the Court held that accused cannot repeatedly seek expert opinion after obtaining an adverse report—Right to fair trial does not extend to unending delay tactics—Held: Trial court correctly exercised discretion rejecting fresh application under Section 45 of Evidence Act [Paras 6-7, 12-13].

Court’s Power to Question Witnesses – Trial Court Not a Mute Spectator – The Court upheld trial judge’s authority to pose questions to witnesses for eliciting truth—Referring to State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh and Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, it reiterated that judicial intervention through questions is valid and ensures fair trial [Paras 9-10].

Misuse of Court Process – Accusation of Bias against Trial Court – Mala Fide Intent – Court found the petitioner’s application driven by allegations of bias rather than genuine grievance—Held: Application was not bona fide, intended to delay trial, hence rightly dismissed [Paras 11, 13].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Court dismissed the petition challenging order dated 16.06.2025 and upheld trial court’s refusal to refer matter to fresh forensic examination—Observations confined to petition disposal with no bearing on final trial outcome [Paras 13-14].

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].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal  – Cheque Dishonour Acquittal – Section 138 NI Act – Appeal Transferred to Sessions Court – The appellant sought leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in a dishonoured cheque complaint – High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, which clarified that a victim under Section 138 NI Act has an unqualified right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court without seeking leave from the High Court – Held: The present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., and matter transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 3, 5].

Prospective Overruling – Applicability of Judgments – Right to Appeal Clarified – Supreme Court’s ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora, Crl. A. No. 1319 of 2013, decided on 17.04.2025 applied the doctrine of prospective overruling and reiterated that judicial pronouncements on interpretation of law have retrospective effect unless specified otherwise – Held: Interpretation of Sections 372 and 378 Cr.P.C. by Supreme Court applies retrospectively, entitling the complainant to appeal before Sessions Court [Paras 4-5].

Victim’s Right of Appeal – Distinction Between Victim and Complainant – The Court emphasised the enhanced right of appeal conferred upon victims by the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., distinguishing it from the limited rights under Section 378(4) – Held: A payee or holder of cheque under Section 138 NI Act qualifies as ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., entitled to file appeal directly before Sessions Court [Paras 3, 5].

Decision – Matter Transferred to Sessions Court – Leave Application Treated as Appeal – The High Court directed that the appeal be treated under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrusted to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication on merits – Complete record directed to be transferred to Sessions Court [Paras 5-6].

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].

Criminal Procedure – Proclamation and Attachment – Validity – The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court declaring him a proclaimed person and issuing a notice under Section 83 Cr.P.C. for the attachment of his property. The petitioner contended that the trial court conducted the proceedings in haste and did not adhere to the prescribed procedures under Section 82 Cr.P.C.​​.

Exemption from Personal Appearance – The petitioner had moved applications for exemption from personal appearance, which were initially allowed but later declined, leading to the issuance of warrants of arrest and subsequently proclamation warrants. The petitioner argued that he was never served with the said warrant as he was not residing at the address, and the issuance of the warrant was furnished to an unrelated person​​.

Issuance of Proclamation – The court emphasized that the proclamation process must strictly adhere to the procedures laid down in Section 82 Cr.P.C., which include public reading, affixation to the person's house, and publication in a local newspaper. The trial court's reliance on information from an unknown person without verifying the petitioner's current address was deemed insufficient​​.

Decision: The order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, in case No. NACT/77022/2023, was found to be flawed and not in compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. The order was quashed, and the petition was allowed​​.

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Section 138 NI Act – Dismissal Set Aside - The petitioner challenged the order dismissing his appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act for non-appearance – The High Court held that appeal against conviction must be decided on merits even if the appellant is absent – Relying on binding precedents, the Court emphasized the doctrine of audi alteram partem and the necessity to avoid arbitrary orders – Held: Order of dismissal unsustainable and set aside [Paras 1-4, 7-9].

Principle of Natural Justice – Right to Be Heard – Remand for Fresh Consideration – The Court reiterated that no person should be condemned unheard, and the failure of counsel or absence of the accused should not lead to dismissal without adjudication on merits – Held: Matter remanded to appellate court for fresh decision after hearing petitioner [Paras 5-9].

Judicial Duty – Speaking Order Requirement – Appellate Court Failed to Record Reasons – The High Court criticized the mechanical and non-reasoned order of the appellate court, observing that every judicial decision must be supported by reasons reflecting due application of mind – Held: Appellate court directed to pass reasoned and speaking order after hearing all parties [Paras 8-9].

Cited Precedents – Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed in Default – The Court relied on Bani Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439, and Sakunthala v. State, Cr. Appeal No. 474/2020, to hold that appellate courts must decide conviction appeals on merits, irrespective of presence of parties – Held: Dismissal without hearing violates settled law [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Order Dismissing Appeal Set Aside – Revision Petition Allowed – The impugned dismissal order dated 23.08.2022 set aside – Case remanded for hearing and fresh adjudication on merits – Petitioner directed to appear before appellate court on 04/08/2025 [Para 9].