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].

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Marking of unstamped/unregistered partition deed at interlocutory stage – Trial Court cannot compel payment of stamp duty and penalty before stage of evidence – Exhibits cannot be marked during IA hearing – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for decision on IA based on prima facie materials [Paras 5–8].

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Unstamped Instruments – When Duty/Penalty Payable – Under Section 35(a), an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument becomes admissible in evidence only upon payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty – However, such requirement arises only at the stage when a party seeks to admit the document in evidence – Held: At the IA stage, where evidence is not being formally collected, direction to pay duty and penalty is premature [Paras 4–6].

Interlocutory Proceedings – Marking of Exhibits – Improper at IA Stage – In an application for temporary injunction, documents may be looked into for prima facie satisfaction but cannot be formally marked as exhibits – Trial Court erred in marking Exs.P1–P6 and R1–R12 at the injunction stage – Exhibiting of documents is permissible only during trial when evidence is formally tendered [Paras 5–7].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Impounding – When Appropriate – Whether an unregistered partition deed requires impounding under Section 33 or attracting Section 35 consequences arises only when the document is sought to be admitted in evidence – Trial Court may consider impounding at the appropriate evidentiary stage during witness examination, but not at the IA stage [Paras 6–8].

Civil Revision – Impugned Order Illegal – Set Aside – Trial Court’s order directing payment of stamp duty and penalty before trial commenced held illegal and improper – Order quashed – Trial Court directed to decide I.A. No.477/2017 based on oral and documentary materials placed for prima facie consideration without treating them as exhibits [Paras 7–9].

Direction for Expeditious Disposal – Trial Court directed to dispose I.A. No.477/2017 within three weeks and the suit within one year, avoiding unnecessary adjournments; parties directed to cooperate [Para 10].

Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement – Permitted User – Consent Decree Enforcement – Plaintiff “The Indian Express” sought injunction against Defendant for using “New Indian Express” in Mumbai for event promotion, violating Clause 18(iv) of MoS dated 05/02/1995 and Supplemental MoS dated 12/08/2005 – Defendant granted only limited user rights for publishing English daily in five southern states and specified UTs – Held: Defendant’s conduct in Mumbai beyond scope of permitted user – Prima facie case made out for infringement and passing off [Paras 1, 75–78, 93].

Contract – Interpretation of Consent Decree – Negative Covenant – Clauses 17, 18(iv), and 19(iv) of MoS impose absolute restriction on Defendant’s use of title “New Indian Express” outside permitted territory and only for publication – Event organization, even promotional, falls outside permitted scope – Held: Limited permissive use strictly confined to agreed terms – No rights conferred for standalone events or revenue-generating activities outside agreed states/UTs [Paras 73–77, 91–93].

Acquiescence and Waiver – Consent Decree – Defendant argued Plaintiff waived rights by non-objection and joint advertising history – Held: No waiver/acquiescence can override a binding consent decree – Plaintiff’s silence, if any, does not imply consent – IPAB order of 2015 restricting use to southern states & UTs remains unchallenged and binding – No positive act amounting to waiver established [Paras 85–90].

Trademark Law – Derivative Marks – Use of “New Indian Express” – Held: Merely adding “New” to “Indian Express” does not create a new distinctive mark – Defendant’s trademark rights exist only under MoS – Registration alone does not confer independent proprietary rights – Plaintiff’s ownership over “Indian Express” remains absolute and enforceable [Paras 92–93].

Delhi High Court Orders – Not Binding – Defendant relied on interim orders of Delhi High Court (2011) – Held: Findings are not binding or conclusive – Delhi Suit dismissed for non-prosecution – No estoppel arises – IPAB’s order and MoS prevail [Paras 83–84].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Injunction granted restraining Defendant from using “New Indian Express” for events, promotion or business outside permitted states/UTs – Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) – No costs awarded [Para 95].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Legally Enforceable Debt Not Proved – Non-production of challan and account entries – Adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act – Prior arbitral award set aside for lack of proof of debt – Suppression of material facts – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 6–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Proof of Legally Enforceable Debt – Burden on Complainant – Non-production of essential documents – Complainant failed to produce challan acknowledging receipt of cheque or to show corresponding entries in the account statement (Ex.P9) – Absence of such primary evidence created reasonable doubt about issuance of cheque and alleged liability – Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act successfully rebutted by accused [Para 6].

Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) Evidence Act – Withholding Best Evidence – Trial Court relied on the principle in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif (AIR 1968 SC 1413) to draw adverse inference against the complainant for withholding relevant documents such as cheque receipt register and complete account details – High Court upheld this inference [Para 8].

Arbitral Proceedings – Effect on Criminal Complaint – Earlier Award Set Aside – Findings on Absence of Debt – Arbitration Suit No.18/2016 resulted in setting aside the arbitral award on the ground that the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt and had not produced proper accounts – Criminal Court’s acquittal was considered in the arbitral judgment, which attained finality – This supported the defence that no liability of Rs.9,10,000/- existed [Para 7].

Suppression of Material Facts – Complainant’s Conduct – Clean Hands Doctrine – Subsequent arbitration notice dated 19.05.2025 revealed repeated attempts to initiate proceedings despite earlier findings against the complainant – High Court held that the complainant had suppressed material facts and not approached the Court with clean hands, further weakening its case under Section 138 [Para 8].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Re-appreciation of Evidence – High Court reiterated that interference with acquittal is permissible only when the findings are perverse or illegal – On re-appreciation, the Court found no infirmity in the trial Court’s assessment – Acquittal affirmed [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal under Section 138 NI Act sustained [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance and Summons – Validity – Cognizance taken by trial court on police report against former Chief Minister and others under IPC and POCSO Act – Earlier cognizance order quashed due to lack of reasons – Trial court re-applied mind and passed fresh detailed order – Held: Procedure followed by trial court is in accordance with law – No grounds to interfere with cognizance or issuance of process [Paras 12, 18–19, 23(i)]

Sexual Offences – Allegations Against Public Figure – Victim aged 17 alleged sexual assault by accused No. 1 during a meeting at his residence – Accused Nos. 2 to 4 allegedly facilitated deletion of social media posts and attempted to silence complainant by inducement – Held: Allegations, if true, disclose cognizable offences – Whether they are true or politically motivated can only be tested in full trial – Quashing not warranted at this stage [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Earlier Writ Petitions – Binding Effect – Accused had earlier challenged first cognizance order – High Court remanded matter without deciding merits – Fresh challenge to second order barred on same grounds – Held: High Court had already held that allegations warrant trial – Petitioners cannot reargue settled issues – Remedy lies before trial court [Paras 11, 14, 17]

Relief from Personal Appearance – Aged Accused – Accused No. 1, aged and infirm, raised concern of harassment due to compulsory attendance – Held: Trial court directed not to insist on personal presence unless necessary – Exemption applications to be considered leniently [Para 21, 23(ii)]

Judicial Directions – Influence of Observations – Trial court directed to decide case uninfluenced by High Court’s observations in prior or present writ petitions – Proceedings to continue as per law based on evidence led [Paras 22–23(iii)]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Trial court’s order dated 28/02/2025 in Spl.C.C. No. 420/2025 upheld – Cognizance and summons sustained – Trial court not to insist on presence of accused No. 1 unless necessary – Petitioners free to seek discharge or any other remedy as available in law [Para 23]

Constitutional Law – Disqualification under Tenth Schedule – Speaker’s decision – Judicial Review – Defection Established – Respondent No. 2, elected on BJP ticket, publicly associated with AITC through press conference on June 11, 2021 – Disqualification petition filed by petitioner on June 17, 2021 – Speaker rejected petition citing absence of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" – Held: Standard of proof under Tenth Schedule is preponderance of probabilities, not criminal standard – Speaker’s approach held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 46–48, 57]

Evidence Act – Electronic Records – Section 65B – Admissibility – Petitioner submitted social media screenshots, transcripts and CD of press conference with certificate – Speaker discarded evidence on hypertechnical grounds – Held: Certificate was submitted; even excluding electronic records, uncontroverted transcript and pleadings proved defection – Speaker’s rejection unjustified [Paras 52–55]

Pleadings – Doctrine of Non-Traverse – Unrebutted Allegations – Respondent No. 2 filed written comments and sur rejoinder but failed to deny core allegations of defection – Held: Material facts deemed admitted – Speaker failed to appreciate non-denial and misapplied evidentiary burden [Paras 35–38, 48]

Quasi-Judicial Role of Speaker – Judicial Review Permissible – Held: Speaker misapplied legal standard, failed to consider admitted facts and evidence – His decision vitiated by perversity and amenable to writ jurisdiction – High Court not required to remand due to urgency and lapse of time – Declared respondent disqualified with retrospective effect from date of defection [Paras 44–47, 60–66]

Appointment Set Aside – Consequence of Disqualification – Held: Since disqualification effective from June 11, 2021, respondent's appointment as Chairman of Public Accounts Committee is invalid and stands set aside [Para 68]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Order dated June 8, 2022 passed by Speaker quashed – Respondent No. 2 declared disqualified under Tenth Schedule w.e.f. June 11, 2021 – Speaker directed to take consequential steps – Appointment as PAC Chairman also set aside [Paras 66–68]

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Condonation Refused – Petitioner, a government body, filed written statement over two years after service of summons dated 01.07.2019 – Trial court had earlier closed right to file WS on 26.09.2020 – Application under Section 151 CPC and Section 5 Limitation Act rejected – High Court upheld the order – Held: Courts can condone delay beyond 90 days only in rare and exceptional circumstances – Petitioner failed to justify delay or show any diligence [Paras 1–3, 13–15, 23–24]

Government Litigation – Blame on Counsel – Plea that panel counsel did not return files after resigning rejected – Petitioner’s own pleadings admitted return of files – No action taken against defaulting counsel – Held: Government body with access to legal officers cannot shirk responsibility by blaming counsel – Litigant must remain vigilant and is bound by acts of authorised counsel [Paras 3, 15–18, 23]

Limitation – Role of Government Departments – Petitioner pleaded administrative delay in appointing new counsel – Rejected – Held: Mere fact that petitioner is a government entity does not entitle it to automatic condonation of delay – Supreme Court precedents stress that law of limitation binds all equally – Delay attributable to bureaucratic inefficiency or red tape not a valid excuse [Paras 21–22]

Procedural Law – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Scope – Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and subsequent judgments clarified that 90-day timeline for filing written statement is directory but not to be routinely relaxed – Extension beyond 90 days to be allowed only in exceptional cases and with reasons recorded – Discretion not to be exercised in cases of negligence or tactical delay [Paras 7–12]

Costs – Frivolous Petition – Petition found frivolous and lacking in merit – Dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 – Directed to be paid to the respondent within two weeks – Recovery ordered from salary of erring officials responsible for negligence [Para 25]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial court’s refusal to condone delay in filing written statement upheld – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on petitioner to be recovered from salary of responsible officers – Trial court directed to expedite suit proceedings.

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.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Non-supply of Audit Report & Accounts – Absence of Personal Hearing – Rule 16(ii) of Helpers Service Rules – Opportunity of Hearing Must be Read Into the Statute – Disciplinary Orders Unsustainable – Writ Appeal Dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Even if Statute Does Not Mandate Hearing, Fairness Requires It – Personal hearing mandatory to ensure fair enquiry – Failure to grant hearing before Ext.P5 vitiates proceedings [Para 7].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Supply of Relied-on Documents – Non‐furnishing of audit report and statements of accounts causes serious prejudice – Delinquent deprived of meaningful defence – Violation of natural justice – Orders rightly quashed by Single Judge [Para 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Reading Principles of Natural Justice Into Rules – Following Abdulla T.A. v. Supplyco (2020 (1) KHC 236), Court holds that even in absence of express provision, opportunity of hearing must be read in – Rule 16(ii) does not override natural justice requirements [Para 7].

Decision – No merit in appeal – Single Judge’s findings upheld – Writ Appeal dismissed [Final Para].