Taxation Law - Goods Seizure and Tax Evasion – Applicability of Section 130 TNGST Act – Prima Facie Case Against Petitioner – The petitioner challenged the confiscation of gold ornaments under Section 130 of the TNGST Act, arguing that the goods were transported solely for exhibition purposes and not for sale – The respondent alleged that the petitioner attempted to evade tax by misusing provisions allowing goods movement without invoices – The Court found multiple discrepancies in the petitioner’s documentation, including the absence of receiver signatures, incorrect weight records, and lack of evidence proving the goods were exclusively for exhibition – Held: The authorities had a prima facie case for invoking Section 130, and the confiscation notice was justified [Paras 8-12].

E-Way Bill and Delivery Challan Compliance – Procedural Irregularities – The petitioner contended that Rule 138(4) of the CGST Rules exempted the requirement of an e-way bill for exhibition-related transport – The respondent countered that the delivery challans lacked proper descriptions, including itemized details of the gold ornaments – The Court observed that mismatches in recorded weights and unverified recipient details indicated potential tax evasion – Held: Absence of critical documentation created suspicion, warranting confiscation proceedings [Paras 10-13].

Mala Fide Allegation Against Authorities – No Evidence to Substantiate – The petitioner argued that the tax authorities acted with mala fide intent in seizing the goods – The Court held that procedural lapses on the petitioner’s part, including unexplained route diversions and missing documentation, weakened its claim – Held: No evidence of mala fide action by authorities; case must proceed based on material evidence [Paras 14-16].

Interplay Between Sections 129 and 130 of the TNGST Act – Independent Operation – The petitioner argued that Section 129, dealing with seizure and detention, should override Section 130, which deals with confiscation – The Court clarified that Section 129 applies to temporary detention, whereas Section 130 is an independent provision that can be invoked where evasion is suspected – Held: The authorities correctly invoked Section 130, and the petitioner must respond to the show cause notice [Paras 18-19].

Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner Directed to File Reply – The Court refused to interfere at the pre-adjudication stage and directed the petitioner to submit a detailed reply to the tax authorities – Held: Petitioner must present its defense through due process; writ petition dismissed [Paras 20-21].
 

Employment Law - Caste Certificate Cancellation – Scope of State Level Scrutiny Committee – Rules Applicable – Petition Allowed – Order Quashed - The petitioner was issued a Scheduled Tribe (Kandha Christian) caste certificate under the Orissa Caste Certificate Rules, 1980. Based on an inquiry report, the State Level Scrutiny Committee canceled the certificate under the framework laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner (1995). Relying on the Supreme Court’s later judgment in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2012) and the Orissa High Court’s decision in Sridhar Kumar Dalai v. State of Odisha (2023), the Court held that the Madhuri Patil directions were inapplicable where specific state rules, such as the 1980 Rules, prevail. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration under the new 2023 Rules [Paras 2.7, 2.9, 4.2-4.4].

Change in Legal Framework – Impact of New Rules – Remand Ordered – The Court noted that the Orissa Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023, superseded the 1980 Rules and granted the State Level Scrutiny Committee the authority to address the petitioner’s caste certificate issue. The Court remanded the matter to the Committee for adjudication under the 2023 Rules, emphasizing the need for due process and a fresh inquiry [Paras 3.3, 4.3-4.4].

Participation in Proceedings – Waiver of Objection – Not Absolute – The petitioner’s participation in the Scrutiny Committee proceedings, including submission of a reply to the show cause notice, did not preclude him from challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated under Madhuri Patil. The Court clarified that a procedural defect cannot be cured merely by the petitioner’s participation in the inquiry [Para 3.1].

Quashing of Proceedings – Impact on Criminal Cases and Service Termination – The Court noted that the impugned order had resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings and the petitioner’s termination from service. These actions were stayed by an interim order. With the quashing of the impugned order, the Committee must reevaluate the matter, and no coercive action can be taken until such determination [Paras 2.6, 4.3-4.4].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 29.03.2016 quashed. Matter remanded to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration under the Orissa Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023. Petitioner directed to appear before the Committee on 07/02/2025. Proceedings to be concluded within four months [Paras 4.4-4.5].

Civil Writ - War Hero Benefits – Eligibility for Employment under Policy Dated 19.08.1999 – Rejection Based on Mode of Discharge – Arbitrary Action by State – Petitioner No.1, an Indian Army soldier injured in an IED blast during Operation Rakshak, was discharged in a low medical category upon completion of service tenure – State denied benefits to Petitioner No.2 (his son), citing mode of discharge (completion of tenure rather than medical invalidation) as a disqualifying factor – Held: Rigid application of discharge criteria contradicts the intent of the policy, which aims to support battle casualties and their families irrespective of mode of release from service [Paras 2-5].

Battle Casualty Certification – Recognition of Military Service-Related Disability – Binding on State Authorities – Petitioner’s 80% permanent disability was certified as attributable to military service, and a Battle Casualty Certificate was issued – Held: State cannot disregard formal military classification of battle casualties to deny benefits – Judicial precedents support entitlement even when service tenure is completed without forced invalidation [Paras 6-7].

Denial of Benefits – Violation of Fairness and Equity – Judicial Interpretation of Ex-Servicemen Status – The State’s refusal was based on a technical distinction between medical boarding out and normal discharge, despite the petitioner’s undisputed battle casualty status – Held: Such an interpretation is unjust and contradicts binding precedents, including Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab, (2002) 4 SCC 154, which affirms that nomenclature of discharge cannot arbitrarily exclude ex-servicemen from benefits [Paras 8-9].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Directions to Consider Appointment – The Court set aside the rejection order dated 04.09.2018 and directed the State to consider Petitioner No.2 for appointment under the policy within three months – Held: Legislative intent must be harmoniously construed with fairness to prevent arbitrary exclusions [Para 11].
 

Labour Law - Certified Standing Orders – Exercise of Power Under Clause 28 – Non-Compliance with Clause 27 – Impersonation Allegation – Removal Set Aside – Clause 28 allows removal without following regular departmental enquiry only in limited cases such as criminal conviction or when continuation of service is against security interests – In the present case, the management failed to conduct a departmental enquiry under Clause 27, and the inquiry report did not find the petitioner guilty of impersonation – Removal based on police verification report alone was unsustainable [Paras 29-31, 38, 44].

Industrial Tribunal – Scrutiny of Enquiry under Section 11-A of the ID Act – Failure of Tribunal – Tribunal upheld removal based on police report without scrutinizing the fairness and adequacy of the enquiry report – The Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to reassess evidence and consider whether the punishment was appropriate – Held: Award of Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 26, 39, 43, 51].

Impersonation Allegation – Evidence and Procedural Deficiencies – The management failed to provide evidence or conduct a proper enquiry proving that the petitioner impersonated Rohini Deshwalin, wife of Kali Deshwali – The complainant did not testify, and conflicting evidence (Form-B records, service excerpts) left the issue of impersonation unresolved – Held: The removal order was passed without proper basis and in violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 33, 35, 38-41].

Natural Justice – Removal Without Opportunity to Defend – Police verification report, relied upon to remove the petitioner, was obtained without giving her an opportunity to respond or cross-examine witnesses – Such removal is contrary to principles of natural justice and amounts to procedural impropriety [Paras 41, 45].

Back Wages – Limited Relief Due to Superannuation – Petitioner attained superannuation during the pendency of proceedings – Considering the unblemished service record prior to removal and procedural violations by the management, the Court granted 50% back wages from the date of reference to the Tribunal until superannuation, with all consequential benefits [Paras 52-53].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Impugned award dated 30/08/2012 of the Industrial Tribunal set aside. Order of removal dated 18/03/2000 quashed. Petitioner entitled to 50% back wages from 19/09/2001 (reference date) until 10/01/2009 (date of superannuation) with all consequential benefits.
 

Civil Writ - Village Panchayats – No-Confidence Motion – Protection Under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) – Whether Applicable to Sarpanch as a Post or to an Individual – Petitioner challenged the no-confidence motion initiated within two years of her election as Sarpanch, arguing that the statutory protection is personal and applies to all Sarpanches irrespective of their sequence in office – Respondents argued that immunity applies to the post and not the individual, and the term "date of election" refers to the election of the first Sarpanch of the term – Held: The immunity provided under Proviso (4) is specific to the individual Sarpanch elected during the tenure of the Village Panchayat and not limited to the first Sarpanch – Motion quashed [Paras 7-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Literal Rule vs. Purposive Interpretation – Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act – Court relied on the literal and plain meaning of Proviso (4) to Section 35(2), emphasizing that the phrase "date of election of Sarpanch" applies to each elected Sarpanch and not exclusively to the first Sarpanch of the Panchayat term – Held: Literal interpretation aligns with the statute’s objective of ensuring stable governance and smooth functioning of Village Panchayats – Judgment in Charushila Bira Shriram disapproved [Paras 8-16].

Governance and Stability – Protection from No-Confidence Motions – Purpose of the two-year protection under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) is to ensure administrative stability and effective governance – Recognizing the immunity as person-specific reinforces this objective and avoids disrupting governance due to frequent changes in leadership – Court affirmed this reasoning to quash the impugned notice [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 11/12/2024 convening the no-confidence motion was quashed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs [Paras 17-19].

Service Law - Juvenile Justice Act – Applicability to Recruitment – Suppression of Criminal Case – Petitioner, a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, did not disclose a pending criminal case in his attestation form when joining SSB – Termination of service on this basis held unsustainable – Juveniles are protected from disqualification under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Omission to disclose such information runs contrary to the spirit and intent of the JJ Act – Held: Petitioner’s termination violated statutory safeguards provided to juveniles, and such termination is unsustainable [Paras 30-38].

Verification of Antecedents – Employment in Disciplined Force – While antecedent verification is important for employment in armed forces, employers must consider legal safeguards for juveniles – Police disclosure of information related to a juvenile's case violates confidentiality under the JJ Act – Such disclosures cannot form the basis for termination of service [Paras 32-39].

Juvenile Justice Act – No Stigma or Disqualification for Juvenile Offenders – Sections 19 and 21 of the JJ Act, 2000 ensure that juveniles in conflict with law are not subjected to stigma or disqualification even after conviction – The petitioner, as a juvenile, was not obligated to disclose pending proceedings – Employer’s action disregarded the protective legislative intent of the JJ Act [Paras 34-38].

Termination of Service – False Information in Attestation Form – The petitioner’s omission to disclose pending criminal proceedings due to his juvenile status does not amount to suppression or false declaration – Reliance on Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar and Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India underscores the principle that minor indiscretions of youth or omissions should not result in disqualification or stigma for life – Held: Termination unjustified [Paras 40-43].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned orders dated 27/09/2017 and 15/12/2014 terminating the petitioner’s service were quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner within 12 weeks, with all consequential benefits except back wages. [Paras 45-46]
 

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Injuries by Firearm – Trial court acquitted respondents Nos. 2 to 6 of charges under Sections 307/149, 147, 148, 324/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Prosecution proved that Respondent No. 2 (Dilip Singh) fired with a double-barrel gun causing simple injuries to the informant and his son – Medical evidence confirmed multiple metallic pellet-like shadows in X-rays of injured – Trial court erred in dismissing the charge under Section 324 IPC – Held: Respondent No. 2 convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt using a dangerous weapon – Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 convicted under Section 324/149 IPC for being members of an unlawful assembly with a common intent to commit the offence [Paras 36-40].

Witness Testimony – Consistency of Injured Witnesses – PW-4 (Mahendra Singh) and PW-3 (Rakesh Kumar) deposed consistently about the firing by Respondent No. 2 and their injuries – PW-1 (independent witness) and PW-2 (informant’s son) corroborated the occurrence – Defense failed to discredit witnesses’ testimony during cross-examination – Trial court overlooked reliable and corroborated oral evidence – Held: Testimonies of injured witnesses and corroborative accounts of other witnesses prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 22-27, 35].

Medical Evidence – Injury Reports and X-rays – PW-5 (Doctor at PHC Bakhtiyarpur) and PW-8 (Doctor at PMCH) confirmed simple lacerated injuries and presence of metallic foreign bodies – PW-8 proved radiological findings of pellets in soft tissues – Absence of pellet extraction or seizure not sufficient to negate firearm injuries – Trial court's dismissal of medical evidence deemed perverse – Held: Injuries consistent with firearm use as alleged by prosecution [Paras 30-34].

Unlawful Assembly – Liability under Section 149 IPC – Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were armed and present during the occurrence – Prosecution established their participation in the unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the offence – Held: Conviction of Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 324/149 IPC upheld [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Respondent No. 2 under Section 324 IPC – Conviction of Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 324/149 IPC – Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 taken into custody – Sentence under Sections 148 and 323/149 IPC remains undisturbed [Paras 37-39].

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation – Quashing of Order – Revision Application – Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 23.03.2021, rejecting further investigation in a case registered under Sections 363/365/366/372/34 IPC – Trial Court found no error in the investigation and held the case fit for trial – Petitioner argued for further investigation to address deficiencies – Court rejected the prayer, holding that the investigation was thorough, fair, and unbiased, with no visible deficiency [Paras 1-18].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Further Investigation – The Court reiterated that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is discretionary and can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances to rectify material deficiencies – Cited precedents clarified that such powers should not be used arbitrarily, especially where investigations are complete, and no new facts or evidence warrant further action [Paras 7-15].

Findings on Investigation – Thorough and Just – Case diary and evidence demonstrated that the investigation was unbiased, complete, and based on all relevant facts – Trial Court retains the authority to address issues during the trial, including framing or altering charges under Section 216 CrPC if needed [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – No irregularity in the impugned order rejecting further investigation – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously, with liberty to consider relevant issues during the trial – Urgent certified copy of the judgment to be supplied to the Trial Court for compliance [Paras 19-27].

Permanent Injunction – Co-sharers – Right to Possession – Encroachment – Plaintiffs, a registered management committee, claimed exclusive possession of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction against Defendant No.1 from interfering in its management, possession, and structures – Defendant No.1 argued that the plaintiffs had encroached upon public land – The lower courts found that the plaintiffs were in exclusive settled possession and had a valid electricity connection in their name – Defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of 14 marlas – Held: A co-sharer cannot dispossess another co-sharer by force, and any dispute regarding possession must be resolved through legal proceedings – Injunction upheld, and the second appeal dismissed [Paras 15-21] – Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Encroachment – Right to Remove – Defendant’s Lack of Locus Standi – The Defendant contended that plaintiffs had encroached on public land – However, the passage land was gifted to plaintiffs via a resolution, and even assuming encroachment, the Defendant had no right to remove it – Held: Any action regarding alleged encroachment must be taken by the competent municipal authorities and not by private individuals – Courts restrained the defendant from interfering with possession except in due course of law [Paras 19-22] – Decision: The decree of permanent injunction upheld, and appeal dismissed.