Clandestine Removal of Goods – Allegations against Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding evasion of central excise duty through the clandestine removal of Gutkha and Khaini – Absence of cogent evidence supporting the charges – Reliance primarily on retracted statements, loose sheets, and Hisaba books. [Paras 17-19, 21-22, 24-26, 28, 30, 32-33, 37-38, 40-41]

Evidence Scrutiny – Retracted statements byz Mool Chand Malu and Vikas Malu not deemed credible due to lack of independent corroboration – Physical verification at factory premises did not reveal excess stock or unaccounted purchases of raw materials – No reliable evidence of actual recipients of clandestinely removed goods. [Paras 24, 26-27, 32-33]

Standard of Proof in Civil Proceedings – Tribunal applied preponderance of probability standard instead of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" – Assumptions and presumptions not sufficient to establish charges in the absence of tangible proof. [Paras 22-23, 37]

Reliance on Seizure Documents – Questions raised over the

Clandestine Removal of Goods – Allegations against Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding evasion of central excise duty through the clandestine removal of Gutkha and Khaini – Absence of cogent evidence supporting the charges – Reliance primarily on retracted statements, loose sheets, and Hisaba books. [Paras 17-19, 21-22, 24-26, 28, 30, 32-33, 37-38, 40-41]

Evidence Scrutiny – Retracted statements byz Mool Chand Malu and Vikas Malu not deemed credible due to lack of independent corroboration – Physical verification at factory premises did not reveal excess stock or unaccounted purchases of raw materials – No reliable evidence of actual recipients of clandestinely removed goods. [Paras 24, 26-27, 32-33]

Standard of Proof in Civil Proceedings – Tribunal applied preponderance of probability standard instead of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" – Assumptions and presumptions not sufficient to establish charges in the absence of tangible proof. [Paras 22-23, 37]

Reliance on Seizure Documents – Questions raised over the authenticity of seizure memos, Hisaba books, and loose sheets due to procedural flaws – Lack of evidence on the actual use and procurement of raw materials. [Paras 36-37]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Majority order of the CESTAT upheld due to lack of cogent evidence against respondents. [Para 41]

authenticity of seizure memos, Hisaba books, and loose sheets due to procedural flaws – Lack of evidence on the actual use and procurement of raw materials. [Paras 36-37]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Majority order of the CESTAT upheld due to lack of cogent evidence against respondents. [Para 41]

Tax Law – GST Registration Cancellation – legality of the cancellation of GST registration of M/S Maurya Industries. The main issues revolved around the application of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the procedural irregularities in issuing the show cause notice and order, and the retrospective effect of cancellation. [Para 1, 4-6, 12-14]

Cancellation of GST Registration – Improper Procedure – Held – The Court found procedural lapses in issuing the show cause notice and order for cancellation of GST registration. The show cause notice lacked essential details such as the name and designation of the issuing officer, and the order of cancellation did not provide sufficient reasons. [Para 11-12]

Retrospective Cancellation – Legal Standards – The Court elucidated the legal standards for retrospective cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It emphasized that such cancellation must be based on objective criteria and cannot be applied mechanically. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Modification of Order – The Court modified the impugned order and show cause notice to the extent that the registration of the petitioner shall be deemed cancelled from the date when the petitioner applied for cancellation of registration (12.04.2023), ensuring compliance with procedural fairness and legal standards. [Para 15]

Further Action by Authorities – Permissibility – The Court clarified that the respondents are not precluded from taking legal steps for recovery of any due tax, penalty, or interest, including the retrospective cancellation of GST registration if warranted and done in accordance with the law. [Para 16]

Civil Procedure – Grant of Opportunity to Lead Defence Evidence –Court reviewed the decision of the Trial Court granting an additional opportunity to the respondents to lead defence evidence in a civil suit involving property dispute. The case centered around the construction of an illegal wall and the obstruction it caused to the petitioners. [Para 1, 3-4, 9]

Opportunity to Lead Evidence – Reassessment – High Court scrutinized whether the respondents were justified in their delay to present defence evidence and whether the Trial Court's decision to grant an additional opportunity, subject to costs, was appropriate. The court took into account the respondents' circumstances, including claims of personal difficulties affecting their participation in the trial. [Para 13-14, 17-19]

Exercise of Discretion by Trial Court – Analyzed –

 court evaluated the discretion exercised by the Trial Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, considering its application and the need for its careful and circumstantial usage. The focus was on balancing the need for expedited trials and the principles of fairness and justice. [Para 15-17, 19]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition –High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Trial Court’s decision to grant the respondents a single opportunity to lead their defence evidence, contingent on payment of costs. This decision was based on a detailed analysis of the respondents' conduct and the specific circumstances of their case, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in civil proceedings. [Para 20-21]

Income Tax – Withholding Tax Certificate – Interpretation of Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – The Delhi High Court examined whether the denial of a Nil withholding tax certificate to SFDC Ireland Limited by the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified. The petitioner, a resident of Ireland, argued that the payments received from SFDC India for the sale of standardized, non-customized software should not be treated as 'Fees for Technical Services' under the India-Ireland DTAA. The court delved into the nature of services provided by SFDC Ireland and the contractual relationship with SFDC India. [Para 1-5, 7, 10, 22-24, 26, 28, 40-43, 47, 49]

Technical Services under DTAA – Interpretation and Application – Held – the Court held that for a payment to be categorized as 'Fees for Technical Services' under the DTAA, it must involve specialized, customized, and exclusive technical service. The training and assistance provided by SFDC Ireland were found not to meet these criteria, being more aligned with enabling SFDC India to understand and market the products rather than providing technical services. The court emphasized the need to distinguish between 'providing a service' and 'offering a facility'. [Para 39-41, 43, 47]

Decision – Quashing of Order and Certification – The Court quashed the order dated 16 October 2023 and the certification dated 18 October 2023 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, directing a re-examination of SFDC Ireland’s application for a Nil withholding tax certificate. The court instructed a fresh consideration of the application, focusing on whether the remittances constituted consideration for technical services and the nature of revenue streams of SFDC India. [Para 50]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Consideration – The matter was remitted to the respondent for a fresh evaluation of SFDC Ireland's application in light of the court's observations, particularly about the nature of technical services and the revenue structure of SFDC India. [Para 50, 51]

Civil Procedure Code – Order VIII Rule 1A(3) – Application for Additional Documents – The High Court deliberated on the petitioner's application to introduce additional documents at a later stage of the trial. The Court examined the relevance and timing of the documents in the context of procedural fairness and the pursuit of substantial justice. [Para 2, 16-20]

Commercial Dispute – Delay in Supply – Liquidated Damages – The dispute revolved around the respondent's failure to comply with the terms of purchase orders, leading to the petitioner incurring liquidated damages from its end customer, HSIIDC. The Court considered the implications of such delays and the contractual responsibilities therein. [Para 5-7]

Relevance of Documentary Evidence – The Court emphasized the importance of timely submission of evidence in legal proceedings, weighing the petitioner's reasons for the delayed submission of a crucial letter and an affidavit against the principles of judicial efficiency and fairness. [Para 10-12, 18-19]

Decision – Partial Acceptance of Application – The Court allowed the letter dated 08.07.2022 to be placed on record, acknowledging its relevance and the petitioner's explanation for the delay. However, it declined the request to include the affidavit of admission/denial, citing the advanced stage of the trial and the need to avoid procedural delays. [Para 20]

Judicial Inquiry and Defamation – Discretion of Court – The High Court of Karnataka dealt with a writ petition concerning allegations of judicial misconduct and subsequent media publication, questioning the appropriateness of disciplinary proceedings and media reportage. The court examined the legal and ethical obligations of judicial inquiry and media in reporting sensitive matters pertaining to allegations of judicial misconduct. [Para 3-14, 57-61]

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judicial Officer – held – The disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, a former District and Sessions Judge, was conducted following allegations of misconduct. The court found that the administrative and full court’s decisions not to accept the inquiry report exonerated the petitioner. The writ regarding the initiation of these proceedings and subsequent reporting in the media was examined, emphasizing the judiciary's responsibility in conducting impartial inquiries. [Para 42-50]

Media Reporting and Judicial Conduct – emphasized – The court highlighted the responsibilities of media outlets in reporting cases involving judicial officers. It emphasized the need for accurate, complete, and ethical reporting, especially in sensitive cases involving allegations of judicial misconduct. The court imposed a fine on a media house for reporting partial facts, which led to misinformation and damage to the judicial process and the petitioner's reputation. [Para 57-61]

Leak of Confidential Inquiry Report – Directed Inquiry – The court ordered an inquiry into the leak of the confidential report from the judicial inquiry to the media, emphasizing the need for maintaining confidentiality in judicial inquiries and safeguarding the integrity of judicial processes. [Para 40-41]

Reliefs and Compensations – Rejected and Awarded – The court dismissed most of the petitioner's prayers, including the request for compensation from the High Court. However, it directed the respondent media house to pay costs for irresponsible reporting. The judgment reflects the balance between judicial integrity, accountability, and media freedom. [Para 51-52, 62]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. –High Court declined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner accused of offenses under IPC and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. [Para 1, 6]

Allegations of Illegal Relationship and Assault – Involvement of Petitioner – The petitioner was accused of being in an illegal relationship with the complainant’s husband and assaulting the complainant. The court found sufficient material for the case to proceed to trial. [Para 2, 4, 5]

False Case Allegation by Petitioner – Rejected – The petitioner's claim of a false case was not accepted. The court emphasized the importance of trial for ascertaining the truth of the allegations. [Para 3, 5]

Trial Procedure – Personal Appearance of Petitioner – The court dispensed with the petitioner’s personal appearance except on specific occasions, ensuring minimal inconvenience while not hindering the trial process. [Para 7]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The court found no grounds to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of the trial for adjudicating the allegations against the petitioner. [Para 6]

Issuance of Summons – Section 81 of TNVAT Act – Summons issued to petitioners to produce various financial and transactional documents for detailed scrutiny – Petitioners argued that such summons under Rule 16(1) applies only to third parties, not to assesses – Court rejected this contention, clarifying that Section 81 empowers issuance of summons to any person, including assesses, for production of documents [Paras 3-7].

Deemed Assessment – Section 22 of TNVAT Act – Petitioners contended that since they filed returns under Section 21 and their assessments were deemed completed under Section 22(2), no further scrutiny was permissible – Court held that Section 22(3) allows the Commissioner to select cases for detailed scrutiny, and such power includes summoning documents from assesses [Paras 8-15].

Commissioner’s Power – Rule 10(11) of TNVAT Rules – Court upheld the validity of the Commissioner's power to select cases for detailed scrutiny and issue summons – Dismissed the petitioners' argument that the summons lacked reference to the Commissioner’s proceedings [Paras 16-20].

Scope of Section 81 – Wide Powers for Document Production – Section 81’s power to summon witnesses and documents extends to both third parties and assesses – Ensures thorough scrutiny of returns and proper tax assessment [Paras 16-19].

Compliance and Verification – Summons Necessary for Accurate Assessment – Emphasized that issuance of summons is necessary to verify the correctness of returns filed – Non-compliance would impede accurate tax assessment [Paras 21-27].

Decision:

The Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off - Dispute over use of the mark 'JINDAL' by the defendants. The plaintiff, Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd., holds registered trademarks for the word 'JINDAL' and contends that the defendants' use of similar marks infringes on their registered trademarks and amounts to passing off [Paras 2, 5, 42, 43, 45].

Analysis of Section 35, Trade Marks Act – Held – The Court noted the absolute protection offered by Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act to the bona fide use of one's name, extending to its usage as a trade mark, and found that the defendants' use of 'JINDAL' in their mark did not infringe upon the plaintiff's registered trade marks. [Para 10-40]

Comparison of Marks – Held – The Court observed that the marks of the plaintiff and defendants were neither identical nor deceptively similar, considering the added features in the defendants' mark, which included the prominent 'RNJ' logo and the name 'R N JINDAL SS TUBES'. This made the defendants' mark a distinct source identifier, unrelated to the plaintiff's mark. [Para 42-45]

Passing Off – Held – The Court concluded that there was no prima facie likelihood of confusion or deception from the defendants' use of their mark, and hence, no passing off occurred. [Para 46]

Decision – Interim Injunction Denied – The application for interim injunction by Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd. against Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. and Rachna Jindal was dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of trade mark infringement or passing off. [Para 47-48]