Taxation Law - Bunching of Show Cause Notices – Composite Notice for Multiple Financial Years – Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act – Composite Assessment Order Quashed – The petitioner challenged the legality of a single show cause notice issued for six financial years resulting in a consolidated demand order – Held: The GST law mandates issuance of notices based on each financial year or tax period independently – Issuing a single notice for multiple years defeats statutory limitation provisions and prejudices the assessee’s rights to present year-specific defenses – The bunching of notices and orders is impermissible under the GST Act and hence liable to be quashed [Paras 5-29].

Jurisdictional Error – Violation of Sections 73(10), 74(10), and 136 of the CGST Act – Orders Void for Lack of Jurisdiction – The Court held that bunching of multiple financial years into a single notice and assessment order is in violation of statutory time limits and procedural safeguards under Sections 73(10), 74(10), and 136 – Such orders are passed without jurisdiction and are therefore void ab initio [Paras 9-27].

Independent Adjudication Mandate – Separate Notices Required for Each Financial Year – Reliance on Judicial Precedents – The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Titan Company Ltd. and Tharayil Medicals cases that each financial year is a separate unit for assessment under GST – Clubbing years through composite notices is inconsistent with the legislative scheme and judicially unsustainable [Paras 10-26].

Hardship to Assessee – Impact on Amnesty Schemes and Compounding – Separate Adjudication Mandated – The Court highlighted that bunching notices causes hardship by preventing the assessee from availing year-wise remedies like compounding under Section 138 and settling disputes under amnesty schemes – Such practices unjustifiably constrain the assessee’s statutory rights [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Composite Order Set Aside – The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order on grounds of illegality arising from bunching of financial years, and directed that if necessary, fresh proceedings be initiated separately for each financial year in accordance with law [Paras 28-29].

Matrimonial Law - Recovery of Istridhan - Ex Parte Decree – Setting Aside on Grounds of Non-Service – Family Court Order Set Aside Against Husband – The husband contended non-service of notice while abroad and sought an opportunity to contest the matter – The Court accepted the general principle favoring adjudication on merits, remanded the case to Family Court on condition of costs payment – Held: Order against husband set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to wife, fresh opportunity granted [Paras 4-7, 15].

Recovery of Gold Ornaments – Lack of Documentary Proof – Appeal Dismissed Against Father-in-Law – The wife alleged misappropriation of 110 sovereigns of gold by husband and father-in-law – The Court found absence of credible documentary evidence to substantiate quantum of gold and inconsistencies in oral testimony – Found that claims against father-in-law were unsubstantiated – Dismissal of claim against father-in-law upheld [Paras 9-14].

Gold Quantity Discrepancies – Photographic Evidence Inadequate – The Court observed that based on wedding photographs and cross-examination, possession of 60 sovereigns of gold was plausible but not 110 sovereigns as claimed – No satisfactory corroboration produced by petitioner – Claim for 110 sovereigns rejected [Para 10].

Opportunity for Fair Adjudication – Remand to Family Court – Husband Given Chance to Contest on Merits – Court emphasized procedural fairness, permitted husband to participate in trial after costs payment – Remanded for expeditious disposal without ordering de novo trial [Paras 7, 15].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping of Minor – Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Conviction Affirmed – The appellant was convicted for kidnapping a minor girl aged 11-13 years under Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Evidence established the girl was taken away without parental consent under false pretext and confined unlawfully – The minor’s consistent testimony, corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, proved kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC rightly upheld [Paras 7-9, 14-15].

Attempt to Rape – Section 376/511 IPC – Proof of Attempt – Conviction Sustained – Though complete penetration was not established, repeated sexual assault attempts, forcible undressing, and physical advances were proved by the prosecutrix’s consistent and credible testimony – Medical evidence indicated broken hymen and absence of injuries due to minor age – Held: Ingredients of attempt to rape made out, conviction under Section 376/511 IPC valid [Paras 9, 19-23].

Delay in FIR – Justified and Not Fatal – Delay in reporting incident explained due to familial involvement and societal stigma – Reliance placed on Supreme Court rulings clarifying delay is normal in sexual offences especially involving relatives – Held: Delay does not weaken prosecution’s case [Paras 17-18].

Victim’s Testimony – Sole Reliable Evidence – Conviction Based – The court emphasized testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to secure conviction if trustworthy – No material discrepancies were found in cross-examination – No plausible reason for false implication was established – Held: Conviction sustained primarily on prosecutrix’s credible evidence [Paras 24-25].

Benefit of Probation – Not Applicable in Heinous Crime – Rejected – Considering the heinous nature of the crime involving sexual assault on a minor by a relative, benefit of probation or first offender protection was denied – Held: Trial court rightly denied benefit under Probation of Offenders Act [Para 27].

Defence Evidence – Unreliable and Unconvincing – Rejected – Defence witness failed to provide credible alibi or contradict prosecution case – Allegations of false implication due to property enmity found baseless and unsupported – Held: Defence failed to create reasonable doubt [Paras 12, 28].

Appeal – No Ground for Interference – Dismissed – The court found no illegality or perversity in trial court findings, conviction based on consistent, cogent, and credible evidence – Held: Appeal devoid of merit, dismissed [Paras 29-30].

Election Petition – Rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Non-Compliance of Mandatory Provisions – Bombay High Court dismissed the election petition filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the returned candidate on various grounds including EVM irregularities and corrupt practices – Held: Petition was defective for non-compliance of Section 82 due to improper joinder of parties and absence of prayer for further declaration – Also held, non-compliance of Section 83(1)(a) as the petition lacked concise statement of material facts and failed to demonstrate how alleged irregularities materially affected the election result [Paras 11-13, 21-23, 31-33].

Grounds of Challenge – Vague Allegations – No Material Facts – Court observed that grounds pleaded under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of RP Act were vague, lacked specificity, and failed to mention particulars of any corrupt practices allegedly committed by the returned candidate – Further held that mere irregularities in election procedure without pleading of material facts or showing material impact on election outcome is insufficient to sustain an election petition [Paras 14-20, 26-29].

EVM and VVPAT Allegations – No Valid Cause of Action – Allegations concerning use of EVM and VVPAT machines were found to be vague, speculative and not supported by factual particulars – Court held that challenges to EVM usage without specific material facts do not constitute valid cause of action – Supreme Court’s judgments upheld EVM credibility, rejecting generalized challenges [Paras 24-25].

Corrupt Practices – Absence of Specific Pleadings – Court held that for allegations under Section 100(1)(d)(ii)-(iv), specific and detailed pleadings are mandatory – Omission of even a single material fact renders petition incomplete – In absence of details like names, dates, places, and role of returned candidate, the election petition is liable to be rejected at threshold [Paras 16, 26, 27, 31-33].

Decision – Election Petition Dismissed – Bombay High Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the Election Petition for want of cause of action and non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions under the RP Act – Observed that allowing trial of such a defective petition would be contrary to settled legal principles – No costs awarded [Paras 30-33].

Civil Law - Property Ownership – Co-ownership Rights – Mandatory Injunction for Rectification of Records – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellant challenged concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court which decreed mandatory injunction for rectification of municipal records to reinstate plaintiff’s name as co-owner – Supreme Court found the registered sale deed showed joint purchase of property and no proof was provided by appellant justifying exclusive ownership – Held: Both Courts rightly directed rectification of records in favour of co-owner; second appeal dismissed [Paras 3-11].

Registered Sale Deed – Evidentiary Value – Conclusive Proof of Joint Ownership – The registered sale deed dated 01.05.1996 (Ex.P-2) conclusively proved joint ownership of the suit property by plaintiff and appellant – Held: Official municipal records and RTI information corroborated the joint ownership status, and appellant could not rebut documentary evidence of co-ownership [Para 10].

Res Judicata – Prior Litigation on Distinct Property – No Bar to Current Claim – The Court rejected the plea of res judicata based on a 2004 judgment regarding a different property (common Haveli and flour mill), holding that the suit property was separately purchased by the plaintiff and appellant – Held: Mere pendency of other proceedings regarding different properties does not extinguish rights derived from a valid registered sale deed [Para 10].

Municipal Record Mutation – Mutation Entries Do Not Create Ownership – Mutation Change Invalidated – The Court held that mutation entries changed during a 2002 survey without supporting documentation or legal basis could not override title under a registered sale deed – Held: Mutation entry in favour of appellant without plaintiff’s knowledge is illegal; plaintiff’s name directed to be restored [Para 10].

No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – The High Court found no substantial question of law arose in the matter since the findings were based on clear documentary evidence of ownership – Held: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 11].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed judgments of both lower Courts – Mandatory injunction in favour of co-owner plaintiff upheld, rectification of municipal record ordered, and no merit found in appeal [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Complaint under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Petitioner apprehending arrest in complaint for unauthorized sale of nicotine-based e-cigarettes without valid license – Prosecution opposed maintainability citing proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Held: Petition maintainable under Section 482 BNSS as petitioner had challenged and quashed the proclamation order in separate petition – Anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with BNSS conditions [Paras 1, 5-7].

Drugs and Cosmetics – Unauthorized Sale of Nicotine Products – During raid, petitioner found stocking and selling products labeled as containing nicotine without valid retail/wholesale license – Petitioner failed to produce valid drug license or reveal source of procurement – Offence prima facie under Sections 18(c) and 18-A of the Act made out – Bail granted without commenting on merits [Paras 4, 7].

Bail Conditions – Aadhaar-based Surety Verification – Court noted prevalent misuse and corruption in verifying sureties through local officials like Lambardars or Sarpanch – Directed Aadhaar verification via mAadhaar app as primary method – Identification through local bodies to be resorted only if Aadhaar is unavailable – Direction to Chief Secretaries and Registries to consider implementing Aadhaar-based verification in legal documents [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted – Proclamation order already quashed – Aadhaar-based verification of sureties to be followed – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Taxation Law - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest Declared Illegal – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – In a petition under Article 226 seeking release of the detenue, the Court found that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence officials had kept the detenue in custody for over 30 hours without presenting him before a Magistrate and without serving grounds of arrest – The arrest was held to be in clear contravention of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and also violated mandatory procedures under Sections 69 and 70 of the CGST Act – Held: The arrest was illegal and the detenue is entitled to release – Further, DGGI officials are to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing a Warrant Officer appointed by the Court [Paras 1-33].

Illegal Detention – Overnight Custody by DGGI – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Detention Unlawful – The detenue was kept in the GST zonal office overnight for more than 30 hours without production before Magistrate – Held: Detention amounts to violation of constitutional protections and is illegal – Consent under coercive circumstances is invalid – Arrest is deemed to have commenced with the unlawful restraint [Paras 13-20].

Section 69 CGST Act – Arrest Authorization Without Application of Mind – Arrest Vitiated – The Additional Director General merely endorsed the proposal for arrest forwarded via the E-office system without independent analysis or satisfaction – Held: Mechanical authorization without reasons to believe or application of mind violates the safeguards under Section 69 and Supreme Court rulings – Arrest declared illegal [Paras 21-25].

Grounds of Arrest – Delay in Communication – Arrest and Remand Vitiated – Although the detenue was restrained at 5:46 PM, grounds of arrest were communicated only at 8:40 PM – Held: Arrest becomes illegal when grounds are not promptly served at the moment of restraint – Subsequent remand proceedings also rendered invalid [Paras 26-29].

CCTV Surveillance – Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Inference of Malafide – Despite court direction, DGGI failed to produce CCTV footage and claimed cameras were dysfunctional – Held: Excuse rejected – Inference drawn that non-compliance was deliberate and intended to conceal illegality – Non-adherence to Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh binding directions [Para 12].

Obstruction of Warrant Officer – Prima Facie Contempt – DGGI Officials Misbehaved and Obstructed Judicial Function – The Court-appointed Warrant Officer was stopped from recording the detenue's statement and had official papers snatched – Held: Prima facie contempt made out – Officials directed to show cause – Law cannot be allowed to be subverted by such conduct [Paras 2.1, 9, 10, 33].

Detenue’s Rights During Interrogation – Statement Must Be Recorded During Office Hours and Under CCTV – The Court reiterated that summoned persons are entitled to legal safeguards during questioning – Held: DGGI must ensure statements are recorded in office hours, preferably under CCTV surveillance, and allow presence of counsel within visible range during investigation – Directions consistent with Mahesh Devchand Gala and Agarwal Foundries cases [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Arrest Held Unlawful – Detenue Entitled to Release – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 were violated by illegal detention and arrest – Authorization under Section 69 was procedurally defective – Arrest and remand are declared null and void – Matter adjourned for final orders on release and contempt action [Paras 30-33].

Taxation Law – Recovery of Tax - GST Liability – Liability of Retired Partner – Section 90 of CGST Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner challenged a demand of Rs. 37,84,228/- and land attachment initiated against him under GST laws, arguing he had retired from the partnership firm on 20.04.2021 and was no longer responsible – The Court held that under Section 90 of the CGST Act, a partner remains jointly and severally liable until written intimation of retirement is furnished to the Commissioner – No timely intimation was made – Petitioner's continued reflection as active partner in GST records justified proceedings against him [Paras 5, 10-14].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of PGST Act – Writ Not Entertained – The Court observed that petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the PGST Act to challenge the assessment and recovery proceedings – Reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where statutory remedies exist unless exceptional circumstances are shown – No such circumstances made out [Para 5].

Land Attachment – Validity of Red Entry – Recovery Action Under Section 79 of PGST Act – Upheld – Petitioner's claim that he learned of land attachment only later and did not consent to it was held irrelevant in light of non-compliance with statutory requirements – The Department’s actions in seeking red entry and initiating recovery under DRC-09 and related provisions were found lawful [Paras 3, 6, 8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty Granted – The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law [Para 16].

Arbitration – Legal Heirs as Parties – Clause Permitting Continuation of Firm – Arbitration Agreement Extends – The partnership deed contained a clause (Clause 15) allowing continuation of business with legal heirs after a partner's death – Clause 16 permitted arbitration of disputes – Held: Legal heirs are entitled to invoke arbitration despite absence of reconstitution deed – Dispute maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 3-5, 14, 33-35].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Petition – No Grounds Made Out – Application Rightly Dismissed – Court found that none of the conditions under Order VII Rule 11 were satisfied – There was a valid cause of action and no legal bar to institution of proceedings – Allegations raised in arbitration petition were not inherently meritless – Commercial Court’s order upheld [Paras 6-7, 22-32].

Partnership Act – Dissolution Not Automatic on Death – Clause in Deed Overrides Section 42(c) – Partnership at Will – Deed explicitly stated that firm would not dissolve on a partner’s death and would continue with successors – Held: Such contractual stipulations prevail over Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act [Paras 33-34].

Commercial Courts Act – Writ Petition Maintainable Despite Section 8 – Constitutional Jurisdiction Not Ousted – Section 8 bars revision/petition against interlocutory orders of Commercial Court – However, High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutional and not excluded by statutory bar – Court may interfere in rare and compelling circumstances [Paras 16-21].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to interfere with Commercial Court’s rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application – Matter directed to proceed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act [Paras 36-37].