Income-tax – Search and Seizure – Section 153C – Jurisdiction – Search conducted at petitioner’s residential premises pursuant to warrant under Section 132 – Statement recorded and panchanama drawn – Satisfaction note prepared treating petitioner as an “other person” – Held: Person whose premises are searched and from whom documents are seized is a “searched person” – Proceedings under Section 153C against such person are illegal and without jurisdiction.

Income-tax – Section 153C vis-à-vis Section 153A – Distinction between “searched person” and “other person” – Mere issuance of warrant in the name of another does not alter the status of the person whose premises are actually searched – Substance of search decisive – Petitioner could only be proceeded against, if at all, under Section 153A and not under Section 153C.

Income-tax – Preconditions for invoking Section 153C – Requirement of incriminating material belonging to a person other than the searched person – Absence of such condition in the present case – Initiation of proceedings held to be bad in law.

Judicial Precedent – Binding nature – Issue squarely covered by judgment of the coordinate Bench in C.R. Ram Mohan Raju v. DCIT, affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court – Consistency in interpretation of Section 153C maintained.

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned notice dated 16.09.2020 issued under Section 153C for Assessment Year 2018-19 quashed – All consequential assessment orders, penalty proceedings and demand notices set aside.

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].

Civil Procedure – Counter-claim – Maintainability of Additional Pleading by Co-defendant – Inter-defendant Claims – Rejected – Defendant No.1 sought leave to file a rejoinder/additional written statement in response to counter-claim raised by Defendant No.3 – Held: Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, counter-claims can only be made by a defendant against a plaintiff and not inter se between co-defendants – Rule 9 does not permit a co-defendant to reply to such counter-claims, as 'parties' refers only to plaintiff and defendant in this context – Permitting such response would result in an impermissible trial within a trial between defendants – Application dismissed with costs [Paras 14–16, 20–22].

Statutory Interpretation – Ejusdem Generis – Application to CPC – Expression 'parties' under Order VIII Rule 9 to be read in the limited context of counter-claims as defined under Rule 6A – General provision must be interpreted in harmony with specific statutory framework – Co-defendant not a proper party to respond to a counter-claim unless made by or against the plaintiff [Paras 15–16].

Case Law Distinction – Inapplicability of Earlier Precedents – Orissa High Court ruling in Chandra Kishore v. Babulal Agarwala and Supreme Court decision in Noorul Hassan v. Nathakpam Indrajit Singh held inapplicable – The former concerned amendment post-pleadings and the latter pertained to election petition procedure under Representation of the People Act, not regular civil suits – Hence, not relevant to instant commercial suit under CPC framework [Paras 17–19].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Costs Imposed – Court held the application to be frivolous and a dilatory tactic to stall trial of the commercial suit – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1 payable to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Application IA No. GA-COM/7/2025 dismissed – Co-defendant cannot file additional written statement against counter-claim of another co-defendant – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1, payable within two weeks.

Execution of Decree – Rejection Of Objections Under Section 47 CPC - Joint Decree Holders – Order XXI Rule 15 CPC – Maintainability of Execution Application – Judgment-debtors objected to execution of joint decree filed by only one decree-holder without express statement of acting for others – Held: Rule 15 is enabling – Express recital is not mandatory if it appears execution is for benefit of all decree-holders – Absence of such recital does not invalidate execution – Judgment-debtors cannot raise objections if other decree-holders have not objected – Distinction drawn between money decrees and decrees for possession [Paras 6–18]

Execution of Decree – Identifiability of Suit Property – Judgment-debtors contended that execution was not possible as Ameen Map (part of decree) did not show disputed points स and द – Held: Decree and judgment clearly describe the disputed portions – Executing court can ascertain location based on pleadings and judgment – Relief not defeated by accidental omission in map [Paras 19–23]

Scope of Executing Court – Interpretation of Decree – Court has duty to interpret the decree in light of pleadings and proceedings – Executing court can go beyond face of decree to ascertain intent and property description – Reference to Pratibha Singh and Bhavan Vaja – Decree not inexecutable for lack of map markings [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of executing court and revisional court upheld – Objections under Section 47 CPC found to be meritless – Directions issued to executing court to decide execution case within six months from submission of certified order [Paras 24–25]

Taxation Law - GST – Refund – Zero-Rated Supply – Eligibility of Exporters – Petitioners, being 100% Export Oriented Units, exported goods without payment of tax under Letter of Undertaking and claimed refund of unutilised input tax credit under Rule 89(4) of GST Rules – Authorities denied refund on ground that claim should have been filed under Rule 89(4A) applicable to deemed exports – Held: Petitioners made zero-rated exports and were not recipients of deemed exports – Refund denial on said ground unjustified – Rule 89(4) rightly invoked by petitioners [Paras 48-56]

GST – Circular Interpretation – Para 2.2 of CBIC Circular No.172/04/2022-GST – Non-Applicability – Circular barred inclusion of ITC on deemed export supplies in refund calculation under Rule 89(4) and (5) – Held: Petitioners were not deemed exporters, nor had suppliers claimed any such status or refund – Circular not applicable to facts – Refund denial relying on para 2.2 untenable [Paras 51-54]

Deemed Export vs. Export – Statutory Distinction – Petitioners exported goods outside India and received consideration in convertible foreign exchange – Supplies to petitioners were not notified as deemed exports under Section 147 and procedures under Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST not followed – Therefore, refund claims not governed by Rule 89(4A) or deemed export provisions [Paras 49-55]

Review and Recovery – Section 107(2) and Section 73 – Academic Issue – Since refund entitlement upheld on merits, Court declined to rule on legality of review under Section 107(2) or recovery proceedings under Section 73 without appeal – Issue kept open for future adjudication [Para 58]

Decision: All refund denial and recovery orders across the five writ petitions quashed and set aside – Respondents directed to pay refund amounts in accordance with law within 12 weeks – Constitutional challenge to Circular No.172/04/2022-GST and retrospective applicability of circular not decided – Rule made absolute [Paras 59-60]

Criminal Law – Section 314 IPC – Illegal Abortion Causing Death – Conviction Confirmed – Appellant, an unqualified person, attempted to terminate pregnancy of deceased (8 months pregnant) using root-like object and fishing hook – Deceased died due to hemorrhage and septicemia following crude and unhygienic abortion – Eyewitness PW-1 (sister-in-law) and PW-3 (daughter of deceased) deposed to invasive act and pleas of victim to be taken to hospital – Medical evidence corroborated uterine perforation and presence of foetal parts – Held: Act was performed without medical qualification, consent of deceased does not exonerate appellant – Conviction under Section 314 IPC upheld [Paras 3–5, 11–13, 22–27, 32, 40–42]

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Corroboration – PW-1 and PW-3 provided consistent, credible eyewitness testimony of abortion being performed with fishing hook – Medical Officer (PW-5) confirmed cause of death as septicemia and hemorrhage due to mid-trimester incomplete abortion – Hook-like injuries matched medical findings – Testimony found natural, unimpeached and consistent with scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–13, 26–27, 29–30, 32]

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Plea for Reduction Rejected – Appellant claimed sentence excessive due to her old age (over 70 years) and lack of intention to cause death – Court held appellant’s actions were inherently dangerous and illegal, involving gross negligence and reckless disregard for life – Consent of victim to abortion irrelevant when procedure is manifestly unsafe – Held: Sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 314 IPC is just and proportionate – No mitigating circumstance warranting reduction [Paras 8, 33–39]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 314 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to undergo remaining part of sentence [Paras 40–43]

Service Law – Dismissal – Unauthorised Absence – Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Earlier LPA Granted Only Pensionary Benefits – No Direction for Back Wages – Employee Did Not Perform Duty for Period 09.06.2001–22.10.2007 – Held, Dependents Not Entitled to Back Wages; Treatment of Absence as Duty Without Pay for Pension Purposes Proper [Paras 10–12].

Pensionary Benefits – Earlier Judgment (22.11.2011) – Scope – Division Bench Only Directed Release of Amount in Pension Calculation Chart – No Mandate to Grant Back Wages – Appellant Having Accepted Pension Benefits Cannot Reopen Issue – Order Dated 22.03.2012 Consistent With Earlier LPA Directions [Paras 10–12].

Compassionate Appointment – Consideration – Dependent Daughter Failed Recruitment Test – Authorities Gave Multiple Opportunities and Guidance – Court Reiterates Direction to Consider Eligible Dependent as Per Rules – No Mandamus to Appoint – Only Consideration Permitted [Paras 8, 13–14].

Service Jurisprudence – “No Work No Pay” – Principle Reaffirmed – Back Wages Not Automatic Upon Quashing of Dismissal When No Work Rendered – Especially When Employee Was Absent and Later Died Before Fresh Enquiry Could Be Held [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Denial of back wages upheld – Direction to consider compassionate appointment reiterated, subject to eligibility [Para 14].

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Protected Tenancy – Statutory Purchase – Sections 32G & 32M – Effect of Mutation Entries – Exclusive Title – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Plaintiff (sister) filed suit for partition in 2002 claiming suit property as joint family property inherited from parents who died in 1949 and 1978 – Evidence showed that defendant Krishnabai became protected tenant in 1957 and purchase was duly completed in 1961 after statutory inquiry, issuance of 32G order, fixation of purchase price, and issuance of sale certificate under 32M – Held: Once purchase under 32G/32M fructifies, title statutorily vests in tenant and property ceases to form part of estate of predecessors – Civil Court cannot ignore binding statutory orders – Concurrent findings contrary to statutory record unsustainable [Paras 5.1–5.4, 10–12, 15–16, 25–26].

Tenancy Law – Representative Capacity – Claim of Joint Family Cultivation – No Evidence – Plaintiff failed to prove that Krishnabai’s protected tenancy was in representative capacity for entire family – No evidence of joint cultivation, sharing of produce, or admission by tenant/landlord as required under Ramakant Ganesh Naik precedent – On contrary, evidence and revenue records (Exhs. 41–50) show exclusive cultivation by Krishnabai for decades – Held: Property not proved to be joint family property – Ratio of Ramakant Ganesh Naik inapplicable; reliance misconceived [Paras 12–15, 22–23].

Limitation – Partition Suit – Articles 65-B & 110 – Plaintiff silent from 1957 to 2002 – No steps to challenge mutation, 32G order, or 32M sale certificate despite public notices and statutory proceedings – First challenge raised only via suit in 2002, nearly 41 years after vesting of title – Held: Suit hopelessly barred; plea of exclusion within 12 years unproved – Mere assertion of proposal for partition unsupported by evidence – Plaintiff’s witness admitted complete absence of proof of joint possession – Limitation bars the suit [Paras 16–17, 19–24, 26].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Sections 85 & 85-A, BT&AL Act – When Bar Applies – Findings of tenancy authorities under 32G/32M are binding – Civil Court cannot reopen or disregard statutory vesting – Trial Court ought to have declined jurisdiction or referred matter appropriately – Failure to consider statutory bar constitutes legal infirmity warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 6.4–6.6, 25–26].

Statutory Proceedings – Public Notice – Non-challenge – Plaintiff’s long silence – Sale certificate shows public notices, individual notices, and participation of interested persons – Plaintiff neither objected nor appealed under tenancy law – Challenge before SDO in 2002 stood rejected – Held: Plaintiff estopped from disputing statutory vesting of title in 1961 [Paras 18–21, 23].

Substantial Questions of Law – Answered in Appellant’s Favour – Courts below ignored binding statutory orders under 32G/32M and misapplied principles of joint family property and limitation – High Court sets aside both judgments [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments dated 08.02.2006 and 21.01.2017 set aside – Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 dismissed – Record to be returned to Trial Court after appeal period – Parties may act on server copy [Paras 27–30].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Grounds of Arrest – Compliance with Article 22(1) – Search at Night – Inventory/Sampling – Section 37 Rigour – Held: Grounds of arrest duly communicated prior to remand; seizure indicates commercial quantity (31.78 g MDMA); quantitative test delay immaterial; Section 37 bar applies – Bail rejected [Paras 12–18].

NDPS Act – Bail – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Mandatory Constitutional Requirement – Compliance Established – Arrest Not Vitiated – Petitioner contended that he was taken into custody at night without being informed the grounds of arrest – Relying on Ahmed Mansoor, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, Court reiterated constitutional mandate under Arts. 21 & 22(1) – Held, records show written grounds of arrest with petitioner’s signature/LTM furnished before production before Magistrate along with remand papers – Requirement under Mihir Rajesh Shah satisfied; arrest not illegal [Paras 7–14].

NDPS Act – Search Conducted After Sunset – Recording of Grounds of Belief – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Petitioner argued that search between 11:35 p.m. and 2:15 a.m. was illegal – Court held that mahazar contains recorded grounds of belief for conducting night search – Challenge unsustainable at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Inventory and Sampling – Stage of Investigation – Non-Consideration at Bail Stage – Petitioner relied on Bharat Aambale and Nagaraj @ Wilson Garden Naga claiming inventory/sampling not done in his presence – Court held that no material produced regarding sampling process and investigation is ongoing; such objections cannot be adjudicated at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – FSL Report Available – Quantitative Test Pending – Effect Under Rule 14 of NDPS Rules, 2022 – FSL report shows sample weight before test 31.78 g and positive for MDMA – Held, this constitutes commercial quantity – Delay in quantitative analysis does not dilute seizure or quantity at this stage and does not defeat Section 37 bar [Paras 16–17].

NDPS Act – Rigour of Section 37 – Reasonable Grounds Not Established – Bail Denied – Court held that quantity seized being commercial, Section 37(1)(b) applies – No material to conclude petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to re-offend; possibility of tampering with investigation or witnesses exists – Bail rejected [Para 17].

Bail – Seriousness of Offence – Punishment Extending up to 20 Years – Investigation in Progress – Nature of offence (commercial quantity MDMA) punishable with minimum 10 years and up to 20 years – Grant of bail would prejudice investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 18].