Taxation Law - Section 9(1)(vii), Explanation 2; Section 147, Section 144C, Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - DTAA Interpretation – ‘Make Available’ Condition – No Transfer of Technical Knowledge – Non-Taxability under Article 13 – The Court held that receipts from GIPL for providing access to an e-invoicing platform do not qualify as Fees for Technical Services under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA – Services rendered by the Assessee did not result in transfer of technical knowledge, skill, or know-how to GIPL – GIPL did not acquire any ability to independently use or exploit the e-invoicing technology – Held: Payments received by the Assessee are not taxable under Article 13 of the DTAA [Paras 31-62].

Nature of E-Invoicing Services – License to Use Platform vs Transfer of Technology – Business Receipts Not FTS – The Assessee merely provided a non-exclusive license to use its proprietary platform to GIPL for generating e-invoices for GSK, without transferring source code or proprietary technology – Provision of such services, despite involving technological processes, did not involve transfer of technical knowledge or capability to GIPL – Held: The nature of services was not technical services under Article 13(4)(c) of DTAA [Paras 13-25, 50-55].

Training and Ancillary Services – Use-Based Training Does Not Satisfy ‘Make Available’ Criteria – The training provided to GIPL employees was limited to operational use of the platform and did not result in transfer of technical know-how or capability to independently render services – Mere operational training does not qualify as ‘making available’ technical knowledge – Held: Training clause in the agreement did not transform business receipts into FTS [Paras 54-61].

Overriding Effect of DTAA over Income Tax Act – Beneficial Treaty Provisions Applicable – The Court reaffirmed that under Section 90 of the Act, DTAA provisions prevail over domestic law if more beneficial to the assessee – Hence, the restrictive definition of FTS under the India-UK DTAA overrides the broader definition in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act – Held: Since services do not make technical knowledge available, no tax liability arises under domestic law or DTAA [Paras 28-30, 62].

Decision of the Court – Appeals Allowed – Tribunal and Lower Assessments Set Aside – The Court set aside the ITAT order and final assessment orders taxing receipts from GIPL as FTS, holding such receipts not chargeable to tax in India under the DTAA – Held: Appeals allowed, assessments quashed [Paras 62-63].

Criminal Law - Section 138 of the – Cheque Bounce - Expert Evidence – Request for Second Expert Opinion after Adverse Private Report – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought to refer signatures on the cheque to a Government Forensic Expert after already examining a private forensic expert whose opinion was discarded by the trial court – Court held that when the petitioner has already led forensic evidence and the report is on record, seeking a second expert opinion amounts to misuse of process – Held: Petition dismissed, no necessity to obtain further opinion once expert opinion already forms part of record [Paras 1-7, 13].

Fair Trial – Repeated Reference to Forensic Examination – Principle against Endless Litigation – Citing precedents including R. Bhaskar Reddy v. Chinni and Santhosh K.S. v. State of Kerala, the Court held that accused cannot repeatedly seek expert opinion after obtaining an adverse report—Right to fair trial does not extend to unending delay tactics—Held: Trial court correctly exercised discretion rejecting fresh application under Section 45 of Evidence Act [Paras 6-7, 12-13].

Court’s Power to Question Witnesses – Trial Court Not a Mute Spectator – The Court upheld trial judge’s authority to pose questions to witnesses for eliciting truth—Referring to State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh and Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, it reiterated that judicial intervention through questions is valid and ensures fair trial [Paras 9-10].

Misuse of Court Process – Accusation of Bias against Trial Court – Mala Fide Intent – Court found the petitioner’s application driven by allegations of bias rather than genuine grievance—Held: Application was not bona fide, intended to delay trial, hence rightly dismissed [Paras 11, 13].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Court dismissed the petition challenging order dated 16.06.2025 and upheld trial court’s refusal to refer matter to fresh forensic examination—Observations confined to petition disposal with no bearing on final trial outcome [Paras 13-14].

Taxation Law – Income Tax Act - Reassessment Proceedings – Faceless Assessment – Finance Act, 2021 – Notices Quashed - The petitioners challenged the reassessment notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers post-01.04.2021 in cases categorized under ‘central charges,’ arguing the illegality of non-faceless proceedings under amended law – The Court reaffirmed that after the Finance Act, 2021, all reassessments under Section 148 must be conducted via faceless mechanism as mandated by Section 151A and the e-Assessment Scheme, 2022, except where explicitly excluded – It was held that the CBDT order dated 06.09.2021 excluded ‘assessment orders’ from faceless mechanism for central charges but did not exempt issuance of notice under Section 148 – The Court rejected revenue’s contention that reassessments arising out of search and seizure could be handled by JAO – Held: Notices issued by JAO post-01.04.2021 are invalid and quashed, reassessment must proceed through faceless route [Paras 3-30].

Principle of Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench – The Court observed that judgments of coordinate Benches are binding unless overruled – Despite reliance on Gujarat and Delhi High Court rulings by revenue, the Court adhered to its previous Division Bench decision in Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola which enforced faceless assessment in central charge cases – Reiterated that jurisdictional High Court precedents prevail over contrary decisions from other High Courts [Paras 23-27].

Interpretation of CBDT Notifications – Scope of Exemptions – The Court interpreted CBDT’s Order dated 06.09.2021 and Notification dated 29.03.2022 – Held: exemptions from faceless assessment apply only to passing of final assessment orders in central charge cases, not to the initiation of reassessment through Section 148 notices – This restrictive interpretation prevents misuse and ensures statutory faceless assessment objectives are upheld [Paras 20-22].

Section 153D Compliance – No Exception to Faceless Assessment – Court clarified that obligations under Section 153D concerning prior approval from Joint Commissioner do not create exceptions to faceless proceedings under Section 151A – Concluded that Section 151A remains applicable notwithstanding Section 153A/153D, and notices must follow the faceless process even in search cases [Paras 28-29].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The Court quashed all impugned notices issued by JAO under Section 148 in central charge cases after 01.04.2021 – Ordered reassessment, if initiated, to be done strictly via the faceless procedure – No order as to costs [Paras 30-31].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Married Daughter’s Succession Right – Hindu Succession Act Prevails – 1/3rd Share Granted - The appellant, daughter of the original propositus, filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in properties granted as occupancy rights – Trial Court dismissed the suit stating married daughter not a member of family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act – Held: Succession is governed by Hindu Succession Act, not KLR Act – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share – Purchasers from co-sharer held to be entitled only to vendor's limited share – Appeal partly allowed and decree of partition passed [Paras 1, 22-34].

Partition and Succession – Right of Married Daughter – Hindu Succession Act Overrides KLR Act – 1/3rd Share Decreed - Trial Court erred in holding that plaintiff was not entitled to share in agricultural land due to exclusion from “family” under Section 2(12) of KLR Act – Held: Hindu Succession Act governs intestate succession and overrides restrictive definition under KLR Act – Married daughter has equal right to inherit ancestral property – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share [Paras 22-30].

Adoption – Validity of Adoption Deed – Adoption of Defendant No.1 by Propositus Upheld - Adoption of Defendant No.1 by the propositus Basagouda supported by registered deed and oral evidence – Court accepted adoption as valid – Defendant No.1 held entitled to 1/3rd share as adopted son [Paras 31-32].

Joint Family Property – Grant of Occupancy Rights – Devolution Among Legal Heirs - Agricultural land granted under KLR Act in favour of father continues to be joint family property unless otherwise provided – All Class I legal heirs including daughters inherit equally – Held: Right of partition survives in favour of married daughter [Paras 25-28].

Bonafide Purchaser – Sale of 1/3rd Share by Adopted Son – Rights of Purchasers Protected - Defendants who purchased property from Defendant No.1 admitted they bought only 1/3rd share – Held: Purchasers are bonafide purchasers of co-sharer’s limited right – Cannot affect rights of other heirs – Their remedy lies against vendor alone [Paras 33-34].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Judgment and Decree Set Aside - Judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing suit set aside – Plaintiff granted 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties – Purchasers from co-sharer directed to work out remedy without affecting partition – No costs awarded [Para 34].

Civil Law - Section 2, 3 and 17 of the Indian Stamp Act  - Stamp Duty – Valuation Date – Market Value on Date of Sale Deed Relevant – Divergence Resolved – The Division Bench answered the reference on the issue of stamp duty valuation under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Held that for purposes of determining the stamp duty on a conveyance/sale deed, the relevant market value is that prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed, and not the date of agreement to sell – Judgment in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case held not good law – Reference answered accordingly [Paras 1, 10-12].

Interpretation – Charging Section vs. Transaction – Stamp Duty Payable on Instrument, Not Transaction – Section 3 of the 1899 Act makes stamp duty chargeable on the “instrument” and not on the underlying transaction – The nature of transaction may be relevant only for determining the type of instrument, but the charge is on the instrument itself [Para 5].

Binding Precedents – Harvinder Pal Singla Overruled – Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association’s Case Distinguished – The Court held that the view taken in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case is not valid since it relied on a precedent that was inapplicable to conveyance deeds – Held: Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association's case pertained to assignment of lease, not conveyance of ownership [Paras 7-9, 11].

Supreme Court Authority – Khandaka Jain Jewellers Followed – Prevailing Market Rate at Time of Sale Deed Controls – The Division Bench relied upon the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, where the Supreme Court held that stamp duty is to be computed on the basis of market value as on date of execution of sale deed – Also followed Shanti Bhushan v. State of U.P. reaffirming this position [Paras 6, 10].

Final Decision – Reference Answered – Market Value on Date of Execution Relevant – Division Bench held that the correct legal position is that market rate applicable at the time of execution of the sale deed governs the stamp duty – Reference disposed of accordingly [Para 12].

Civil Law - Katha Cancellation – Jurisdiction and Validity – Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act – Quashing of Cancellation Order – Writ Petition Allowed - The petitioner, holder of a registered gift deed, challenged the order cancelling katha by the Deputy Commissioner based on allegations of ancestral property and pending compromise decree – Court held that Deputy Commissioner, while exercising limited supervisory revisional powers under Section 322, had no authority to adjudicate disputed title especially when civil litigation was pending – Cancellation of katha held to be beyond jurisdiction, in violation of procedural safeguards, and amounted to pre-judging ownership rights – Writ Petition allowed and katha ordered to be restored [Paras 1-17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope Limited to Rectification of Municipal Records – Civil Title Disputes Outside Scope – Court reiterated that Section 322 provides only limited supervisory jurisdiction to rectify errors in municipal records and does not empower Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate complex civil title disputes – Interference with katha based on unadjudicated title claims set aside [Paras 12, 16].

Limitation – Delay in Filing Revision Not Condoned – Procedural Irregularity – Court held that revision under Section 322 must be filed within 30 days – In absence of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the Deputy Commissioner could not have entertained the revision petition – Impugned order quashed on this ground also [Para 13].

Civil Suit Pending – Non-Interference Principle – Revenue Authorities Barred from Adjudicating Title – Where title dispute is pending in civil court, revenue authorities must refrain from adjudicating or altering records based on disputed ownership claims – Katha cancellation in this case held impermissible and unsustainable [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Cancellation of katha by the Deputy Commissioner quashed – Direction issued to restore petitioner’s katha within six weeks – All consequential actions nullified – No costs awarded [Para 17].

Writ – Tenancy Law - Mutation Entries – Delay in Challenge – Jurisdictional Defect – RTS Appeal Filed after 33 Years Without Condonation – Order of SDO Cancelled – Court held that challenge to Mutation Entry No.1201 dated 14.07.1962 by Gaikar family after lapse of 33 years without condonation of delay rendered the entire proceedings before SDO void ab initio – SDO assumed jurisdiction without first condoning delay, violating basic principles of law – Order dated 20.12.2001 passed by SDO is a nullity and was rightly set aside by the Additional Commissioner in Revision – Writ Petition of Gaikar family dismissed [Paras 10-12].

Effect of Mutation on Title – Mutation Entry is Not Conclusive of Ownership – Mutation Entry made for fiscal purposes – Determination of substantive ownership requires adjudication by Civil Court – Court reiterated settled principle that Mutation Entries cannot confer title – Gaikar family did not institute any civil proceedings for declaration of ownership and attempted to misuse RTS process – Appropriate remedy is by way of civil suit and not RTS appeal after inordinate delay [Paras 11, 14].

Tenancy Rights – Section 32G Proceedings Vitiated – Entire Proceedings Emanating from Nullified RTS Order Invalid – Section 32G purchase proceedings initiated by Gaikar family in 2002 based on the void SDO order dated 20.12.2001 are vitiated – Consequently, Section 32M certificate issued to Gaikar family set aside – MRT orders declining to condone delay rightly upheld – Mutation Entries 2473, 2474, 2475 directed to be deleted – Writ Petition of Adurkar family allowed [Paras 16-17].

Public Acquisition – Entitlement to Allotment Under 12.5% Scheme – CIDCO Directed to Allot Plot to Landlord Family – Court directed CIDCO to hand over earmarked plot and other acquisition benefits to Adurkar family, being recorded owners at the time of acquisition, within four weeks as per law [Para 18].

Future Remedy – Right to Civil Remedy Reserved – Court kept open liberty of parties to institute civil proceedings for declaration of rights if advised – RTS and tenancy orders not determinative of title – Civil Court jurisdiction preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2006 filed by Gaikar family dismissed – Writ Petition No. 10280 of 2023 filed by Adurkar family allowed – CIDCO to process allotment in favour of Adurkar family – Interim Applications disposed – Four-week stay on judgment granted to Gaikar family for approaching higher court [Paras 15-23].

Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability under NDPS Act – Rigour of Section 37 Applicable – Applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 27, 29 of the NDPS Act – Prosecution objected to maintainability citing Supreme Court decisions emphasizing stringent conditions under Section 37 – Held: Anticipatory bail not maintainable where prima facie involvement in drug trafficking is revealed—custodial interrogation necessary—Section 37’s embargo applies despite applicant’s contention of being charged under Section 27 only [Paras 7-9, 14].

NDPS Act – Prima Facie Evidence of Involvement in Trafficking – Application Rejected – Investigation revealed multiple financial transactions between applicant and main accused dealing in contraband, as well as call data records and independent witness statements – Despite applicant’s claim of transactions relating to firecracker business, Court held prima facie material indicating complicity in illicit trafficking—custodial interrogation required to unearth wider conspiracy [Paras 8-9].

Offence under Section 27 NDPS – Bailable or Non-Bailable – Controversy Pending Before Larger Bench – Applicant argued Section 27 offence is bailable citing Stefan Mueller’s case – Court held pending reference before Larger Bench in Karishma Prakash’s case, and in view of Rhea Chakraborty and Constitutional Bench decision in Baldev Singh, offences under NDPS Act including Section 27 to be treated as cognizable and non-bailable—Held: Applicant’s reliance on Stefan Mueller misplaced [Paras 10, 13].

NDPS Bail Jurisprudence – Custodial Interrogation Essential in Trafficking Cases – Court reaffirmed principle from Supreme Court decisions in Muraleedharan and Ram Samujh that custodial interrogation is vital in drug trafficking cases to dismantle networks and prevent continued illicit activity—Held: Applicant’s custodial interrogation justified despite filing of charge sheet [Paras 7, 9].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Application Rejected – Held: Given serious allegations, prima facie involvement, and pending investigation on financial trail, applicant not entitled to anticipatory bail – Liberty granted to apply for regular bail before trial court [Paras 14-16].

Service Law – Regularization of Casual Workers – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Petition Allowed – Petitioners engaged under Raiganj Municipality on fixed remuneration since 2006 pursuant to formal municipal resolutions—appointments made during absence of recruitment rules—petitioners rendered uninterrupted service for nearly two decades—Court held appointments not illegal but procedurally irregular—Held: Long-standing, bona fide service created legitimate expectation for regularization—State directed to regularize services of petitioners with immediate effect [Paras 1-35].

Municipal Employment – Recruitment Rules and Regularization – Distinction between Illegal and Irregular Appointments – Regularization Directed – Court held that prior to 12.09.2006, absence of codified recruitment process did not render such appointments illegal—appointments were made to meet administrative necessity by competent authorities—held to be irregular but legitimate—reference made to Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Prasanta Kumar Das case directing similar regularization—petitioners entitled to similar relief [Paras 26-29].

Recruitment Notification – Recruitment Process Stayed – Validity of Recruitment Challenged – Stay Order Upheld – Recruitment notice issued on 28.12.2019 stayed by coordinate Bench—Court noted recruitment should be conducted by Municipal Service Commission, not Chairman—Respondents failed to challenge interim stay—fresh recruitment stayed till regularization of petitioners [Paras 30-31].

Constitutional Mandate – Fairness in Public Employment – Right to Regularization Recognized – Relying on judgments in Jaggo v. Union of India, Narendra Kumar Tiwari, and District Bar Association Bandipora—Court held that long-standing, indispensable service mandates regularization under Articles 14 and 16—reliance placed on humanitarian and equitable considerations to prevent arbitrary exclusion of bona fide employees [Paras 32-35].

Decision: Petitions Allowed – Court held that petitioners’ appointments were not illegal but irregular and made under genuine administrative need—long-standing service combined with repeated requests for regularization created enforceable legitimate expectation—State directed to regularize services of petitioners immediately—Fresh recruitment process stayed—pending applications disposed of—no costs imposed [Paras 35-38].