Taxation Law - GST – Scope of Supply – Assignment of Leasehold Rights – Immovable Property – Not Taxable – Show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) CGST Act alleging non-payment of GST on assignment of leasehold rights in MIDC industrial plot – Revenue alleged transaction amounted to supply of services under Section 7 read with Schedule II – Held: Assignment of long-term leasehold rights with consent of MIDC results in transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property – Such transaction neither lease nor sub-lease and not a supply of services – GST not leviable [Paras 3–4, 7, 9–10, 13–15].

Assignment vs Lease – Extinguishment of Rights – No Sub-Lease – Respondents themselves admitted transaction was not sub-lease as assignor’s rights stood extinguished – Assignment results in assignee stepping into shoes of original lessee – Transaction amounts to transfer of immovable property rights and not letting or renting – Outside scope of Schedule II [Paras 7, 9].

Schedule II – Clause 2(b) – Misapplication by Revenue – Clause 2(b) of Schedule II covers lease or letting out of buildings for business or commerce – Assignment of leasehold rights does not fall within “lease or letting” – Classification of such transaction as “other miscellaneous services” under Notification No. 11/2017 held untenable [Paras 6–8].

Supply in Course or Furtherance of Business – Essential Ingredient Absent – Assignment of leasehold rights was not in course of or in furtherance of petitioner’s business – Transaction pertained exclusively to transfer of immovable property – Essential element of “business nexus” under Section 7(1)(a) missing [Para 10].

Reliance on Gujarat High Court – Binding Precedent – Court relied upon Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India, (2025) 170 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) – Held that assignment of leasehold rights in industrial land amounts to transfer of immovable property and not supply under GST – Following CIT, Vidarbha v. Godavari Devi Saraf, such decision binding on authorities in absence of contrary view [Paras 10–14].

Industrial Development Corporation Leases – GST Exemption and Assignment – Even if initial grant of long-term lease by development corporation is treated as supply of service, same enjoys NIL rate under Notification No. 12/2017 – Subsequent assignment by lessee to third party is sale/transfer of immovable property and not exigible to GST [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Show cause notice dated 20-12-2024 issued under Section 74(1) CGST Act quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute [Paras 15–16].

Tenancy Law - Cultivating Tenants Protection – Fixation of Arrears – Jurisdiction of Revenue Court – Tenant filed petition only seeking permission to deposit rent – Despite memo not pressing the petition, Revenue Court unilaterally determined arrears of Rs.93,418/- based on market value of paddy and revenue reports – Held, fixation of fair rent can be done only by the competent authority under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1970 – Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction – Order dated 08.09.1999 held a nullity [Paras 21–27].

Counsel’s Concession – Binding Nature – Alleged consent by tenant’s counsel to determination of arrears contrary to statute and contract – Held, counsel has no authority to surrender substantive rights or make concessions on questions of law – Such concession neither binds the client nor cures lack of jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent [Paras 26–27].

Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent – Section 3(4)(b), Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act – Mandatory Opportunity – Before ordering eviction, Revenue Court bound to grant reasonable time to tenant to deposit arrears – Tenant filed multiple applications expressing readiness to pay arrears – Applications kept pending for 20–28 years and dismissed mechanically along with eviction petition – Statutory mandate violated – Eviction order vitiated [Paras 28–30].

Abandonment of Cultivation – Pleadings and Proof – No plea by landlord alleging abandonment – Revenue Court suo motu relied on Tahsildar’s report and wrongly treated it as admission by tenant – Evidence without pleadings impermissible – Finding of abandonment held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 31–32, 38].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a welfare statute intended to protect cultivating tenants from unjust eviction – Courts must adopt liberal and tenant-oriented interpretation – Revenue Court failed to keep in view objects of the Act and scheme for fixation of fair rent – Eviction order set aside [Paras 24, 29, 34–35].

Legal Representatives of Cultivating Tenant – Status – Landlord himself impleaded legal heirs of deceased cultivating tenant – Revenue records showed cultivation by deceased tenant and his son – Objection that legal representatives are not cultivating tenants rejected – Petitioners entitled to protection under the Act [Paras 33, 37].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 29.11.2023 in PCTPA.No.1 of 2001 set aside – Petitioners directed to deposit entire arrears of rent payable strictly in terms of the contract within eight weeks – On such deposit, possession to be restored within one week – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate fresh eviction proceedings in accordance with law – No costs – Connected CMP closed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Pre-cognizance Stage – Section 223 BNSS – Magistrate directed issuance of notice to accused before taking cognizance – Held impermissible in complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is a special enactment – No requirement of issuing notice or summons to accused prior to taking cognizance [Paras 5–10].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Interpretation of First Proviso – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Supreme Court clarified that proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS does not mandate pre-cognizance notice in cheque dishonour cases – Trial Court erred in applying proviso mechanically at pre-cognizance stage [Paras 6–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Supreme Court Decision – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar – Law declared that issuance of notice to accused prior to cognizance is not required in N.I. Act cases – Held: Trial Court order contrary to binding precedent suffers from legal infirmity [Paras 8–10].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Motion Stage Disposal – Pure Question of Law – In view of settled legal position, criminal revision taken up and decided at motion stage – Issuance of notice to private respondents dispensed with [Paras 11].

Remand – Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh in accordance with law and Supreme Court ruling – Impugned order quashed to the extent of issuing pre-cognizance notice [Paras 10, 12–14].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 quashed to the extent it directed issuance of notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage – Trial Court directed to take fresh decision on cognizance and issuance of process in accordance with law.

Domestic Violence Act – Section 2(f) – “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” – Live-in Relationship with Married Man – Not Maintainable – Petitioner claimed reliefs under PWDVA alleging marriage and long-standing cohabitation with Respondent No.1 during subsistence of his first marriage – Evidence of joint property purchase, financial arrangements, IVF treatment, and birth of child relied upon – Sessions Court reversed reliefs granted by JMFC – Held: Relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man, entered into with knowledge of subsisting marriage, does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” – Such relationship lacks legal sanctity and falls outside ambit of Section 2(f) PWDVA [Paras 24–28].

Live-in Relationship – Supreme Court Guidelines – Indra Sarma and D. Velusamy Applied – Court reiterated that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage – Essential conditions include parties being legally eligible to marry – Respondent No.1, being married, failed to satisfy mandatory condition of legal eligibility – Ratio of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal squarely applicable [Paras 22–27].

Knowledge of Existing Marriage – Effect – Petitioner admitted awareness of Respondent No.1’s marital status at inception of relationship – Even if induced by misrepresentation, such relationship cannot be elevated to marriage-like status under PWDVA – Relationship akin to concubinage or extra-marital affair, for which Act does not presently provide protection [Paras 25–26].

Joint Property, Financial Control, Childbirth – Not Conclusive – Factors such as joint ownership of property, handling of bank accounts, sexual relationship, IVF treatment, or birth of child, though relevant, are insufficient by themselves to establish relationship in the nature of marriage when core legal requirements are absent – Social projection as husband and wife and legal capacity to marry remain determinative [Paras 25–27].

PWDVA – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Interpretation – While PWDVA is a beneficial statute intended to protect women from abuse, courts cannot extend its scope beyond statutory definition – Expansion of protection to relationships knowingly entered with married persons requires legislative intervention and not judicial enlargement [Paras 26–28].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Sessions Court correctly applied settled law and reversed trial court’s findings – No perversity or jurisdictional error found warranting interference under Article 227 – Concurrent appreciation of law upheld [Para 28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Criminal Law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – Mechanical Cognizance on Protest Complaint – Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on a protest complaint after police filed refer report finding allegations false – Order merely recorded “prima facie case made out” without reasons – No discussion of evidence recorded under Section 200 CrPC – No reasons for disagreeing with police refer report – Held: Such casual and mechanical order reflects non-application of mind and vitiates cognizance – Proceedings liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 5–6].

Protest Complaint – Duty of Magistrate – When a refer report is filed, Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind, evaluate materials, record reasons for differing from investigation findings and indicate sufficient grounds to proceed – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable [Paras 6, 8].

Forgery of Will – Mere Clerical Error Not Sufficient – Allegation of forgery based solely on misdescription of name of one attesting witness in Will deed – Investigation revealed it to be a typographical error with same person having signed – Magistrate ignored investigation findings without justification – Criminal prosecution held unjustified [Paras 8–9].

Public Servant – Sub-Registrar – Acts Done in Official Capacity – Section 197 CrPC – Fourth accused was Sub-Registrar who registered Will deed in discharge of statutory duty – No allegation of independent role in conspiracy or forgery except official act of registration – Magistrate failed to consider requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Proceedings against public servant without sanction held impermissible [Paras 7–8].

Abuse of Process of Law – Ends of Justice – Continuation of criminal proceedings against private parties and public servant despite false refer report and absence of prima facie material amounts to abuse of process – Inherent jurisdiction rightly invoked to secure ends of justice [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Cases allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 93 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 quashed – Impugned order taking cognizance set aside.

Land Acquisition – Bangalore Development Authority Act – Lapse of Scheme under Section 27 – Substantial Implementation – Preliminary Notification issued for 1532 acres – Final Notification restricted to 750 acres – BDA took possession of 580 acres 18 guntas and formed layout carving out thousands of sites – Majority of sites allotted – Held, scheme substantially implemented – No lapse under Section 27 of BDA Act [Paras 6, 10, 13–14].

Land Acquisition – Taking Possession – Mahazar and Section 16(2) Notification – Award passed, compensation deposited in Court, possession taken by drawing mahazar and notification under Section 16(2) published – Mutation effected in favour of BDA – Held, acquisition proceedings showed seamless and lawful flow of events – Mode of taking possession not illegal or irregular [Paras 11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Final Notification published in 2003 – Five years expired in 2008 – Writ petition filed only in 2013 without satisfactory explanation – Alleged fresh cause of action based on entry by BDA officials rejected – Held, petition barred by delay and laches [Paras 11].

Locus Standi – Subsisting Interest – Challenge by Subsequent Claimants – Original khatedars did not challenge acquisition – Gift deeds executed prior to preliminary notification – Held, petitioners lacked locus in respect of certain survey numbers – However, legal heirs of Ammayamma held to have locus regarding Sy.No.36/1 [Paras 8].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Earlier writ petitions challenged acquisition notifications but did not raise plea of lapsing under Section 27 of BDA Act – Held, subsequent petition on ground of lapse not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata [Paras 9].

Discrimination – Betterment Charges – Denotification – BDA permitted certain landowners to retain lands on payment of betterment charges – Petitioners’ claim of discrimination rejected – Held, deletion based on rational considerations and public interest – No right to claim parity [Paras 6, 13].

Precedent – Coordinate Bench – Binding Effect – Earlier Division Bench judgment upheld acquisition for same layout and specifically negatived plea of lapse – Supreme Court dismissed civil appeals arising therefrom – Held, consistency required – No ground for interference with Single Judge’s order [Paras 12–14].

Public Interest – Urban Development – Acquisition for planned development – Courts should not interfere once substantial development has taken place – Individual interests must yield to larger public purpose [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Writ Appeal No. 944 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No. 926 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10331 of 2013 upheld – Land acquisition proceedings sustained – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 325 IPC – Reliability of Injured Witness – Sentence Modified – Appellants convicted by Trial Court for causing grievous hurt to victim by assaulting him with wooden stick and bicycle pump – Prosecution case supported by injured eyewitness (P.W.2), independent eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Defence contended inconsistencies regarding weapon used and role of accused – Held: Evidence of injured witness carries greater evidentiary value and inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies as to number of assailants or nature of weapon do not discredit core prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras …].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitness – Legal Principles – Statement of injured witness corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitnesses – No material contradictions elicited in cross-examination – Reliance placed on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Presence and testimony of injured witness cannot be doubted unless serious infirmities exist – Broad substratum of prosecution case to be accepted [Paras …].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Doctors (P.W.9 and P.W.12) proved grievous head injuries including fracture – Injury reports consistent with assault by hard and blunt objects – Seized weapons produced and proved – Medical evidence lends assurance to ocular testimony [Paras …].

Sentence – Reduction – Long Lapse of Time – Ends of Justice – Incident dated 12.06.2008 – Appellants already suffered custody for more than one month – After lapse of nearly 17½ years, sending appellants back to prison would serve no useful purpose – Sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Conditional bond under Section 106(4) Cr.P.C. directed for two years [Paras …].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 325 IPC affirmed – Sentence modified to period already undergone subject to furnishing bond – Appeal disposed of.

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against Child – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted for wrongful restraint, outraging modesty and rape of a minor girl – Victim gave a clear, cogent and consistent account of sexual assault involving digital penetration and sexual acts – Cross-examination failed to discredit her testimony – Held: Conviction can be safely based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when it inspires confidence [Paras 14–17, 22].

Evidence – Minor Contradictions and Omissions – Effect – Defence highlighted omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and discrepancies regarding disclosure of incident – Held: Minor omissions which do not affect the core of prosecution case are inconsequential and do not undermine credibility of victim’s testimony [Paras 16, 23–24].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Medical examination conducted after lapse of time showed no genital injuries – Doctor opined that injuries could heal within 7–10 days – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of victim – Medical evidence not sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases [Paras 20–22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Sexual Offences – Explained – FIR lodged after victim disclosed incident to friend and family – Delay satisfactorily explained due to fear, trauma and social stigma – Held: Delay in sexual offence cases cannot be equated with other crimes and does not vitiate prosecution case [Paras 22].

Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Adverse Inference – When Not Warranted – Defence argued non-examination of daughter of appellant and other relatives – Held: When evidence on record is overwhelming and unimpeachable, non-examination of some witnesses is not fatal and does not warrant adverse inference [Paras 36].

Rape – Section 375(b) IPC – Digital Penetration – Act of inserting finger into private part of minor squarely falls within Section 375(b) IPC – Consent irrelevant as victim was a minor – Offence of rape clearly made out [Paras 41–42].

Goa Children’s Act – Grave Sexual Assault – Acts proved constituted “grave sexual assault” under Sections 2(y)(i) & (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) – Conviction under special statute justified [Paras 43–44].

Sentence – Age of Accused – No Mitigation in Child Sexual Offence – Appellant aged above 80 years sought leniency – Held: Advanced age of accused not a mitigating factor in offences involving sexual assault on a child – Protection of child and societal conscience paramount [Paras 50–52].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Children’s Court affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith – Prayer for stay rejected.

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.