GST Law – Show Cause Notice – Issuance of Notice under Section 73 – Petitioner challenges the show cause notice for non-compliance with Rule 1A of Rule 142 of GST Rules – Mandatory requirement to communicate details in Part A of Form GST DRC-01A not fulfilled – Court examines procedural compliance and jurisdictional aspects – Concludes that procedural requirements were adhered to and petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to respond [Paras 1-14].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability Despite Alternative Remedy – Principles for exercising writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy – Court holds that petitioner has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting bypass of statutory remedy – References precedents for maintaining writ petitions under such conditions [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to avail alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Court clarifies that proper procedural steps were followed in the issuance of the show cause notice and corrigendum, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. Liberty granted to file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the appeal is time-barred [Para 13-16].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Application for bail by the accused implicated in a narcotics case – Accused has been in judicial custody for 190 days – No final report filed – Entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-12].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Commercial Quantity – Accused found in possession of 84.290 grams of MDMA and 18.070 grams of hashish – Petitioner arrested and in custody for more than 180 days without completion of investigation – Statutory right to bail due to prosecution’s failure to file charges within stipulated time [Paras 6, 12].

Statutory Bail – Indefeasible Right – Provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Right to bail arises if chargesheet not filed within 180 days – Supreme Court’s interpretation in Sanjay Dutt and Uday Mohanlal Acharya cases reaffirmed – Conditions for bail specified [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner to be released on executing a bond with conditions – Emphasis on compliance with statutory provisions and safeguarding investigation process [Para 12].

Income Tax – Transfer Pricing Adjustments – Royalty Payments – The ITAT deleted the TP adjustments of INR 1,99,57,161/- related to royalty payments made by Samsung India to its parent company – ITAT found that Samsung India operates as a full-fledged licensed manufacturer and not as a contract manufacturer – Royalty payments were made for technical know-how and expertise provided by Samsung Korea – ITAT’s order upheld by High Court – No evidence of royalty payments being unreasonable or not at arm’s length [Paras 1-38].

Contract Manufacturer vs. Licensed Manufacturer – ITAT and High Court found that Samsung India was not acting as a contract manufacturer for Samsung Korea – Manufacturing operations and sales to associated enterprises (AEs) driven by open market conditions – Samsung India independently negotiated sales contracts with AEs and third parties – OECD Guidelines referenced to support findings [Paras 22-33].

Role of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) – TPO’s scope of authority limited to examining appropriateness of method and comparables for determining ALP – TPO cannot question commercial expediency or genuineness of royalty payments – High Court affirmed that the TPO exceeded authority by disallowing royalty payments on grounds of alleged contract manufacturing [Paras 20-21, 35].

Arms’ Length Principle – High Court emphasized the need to respect commercial arrangements and agreements between associated enterprises – Adjustments to TP should be made only when transactions deviate significantly from what independent enterprises would agree upon – No evidence of profit shifting through royalty payments [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – ITAT order upheld – No TP adjustments warranted for royalty payments – ITAT’s determination that Samsung India operates as a licensed manufacturer and not as a contract manufacturer accepted – High Court highlighted the importance of respecting commercial transactions and agreements between associated enterprises [Para 39].

Narcotic Drugs – Admissibility of Samples – Conviction under Sections 20(b)(ii)C and 29 of the NDPS Act challenged – Appellants contended that samples drawn at the scene were not forwarded for chemical examination, violating Section 52A – Court noted failure to forward primary evidence, the samples drawn in presence of Magistrate – Held, conviction and sentence unsustainable [Paras 1-21].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Procedure for Drawing Samples – Statutory requirement for samples to be drawn under Magistrate’s supervision to establish primary evidence – Prosecution’s failure to adhere led to lack of evidentiary value in chemical analysis report – Appeals allowed, appellants acquitted [Paras 10-20].

Decision: Criminal Appeals Allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released unless required in another case [Para 21].

Arbitration – Challenge to Award – Interest on Claims – VAT Claims – Challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an award allowing claims for unsupplied items and VAT components – Held that the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction by granting claims contrary to contractual terms – Clause 15.4 of the tender document precluded any interest claims against the purchaser – Arbitrator’s award of interest despite contractual bar was beyond his jurisdiction – VAT claims for unsupplied items and post-delivery period precluded by contractual terms – Award set aside [Paras 1-44].

Contractual Terms and Jurisdiction of Arbitrator – Arbitrator bound by contract terms – Section 28(3) of the Act mandates consideration of contract terms – Short closure clause within the tender terms justified non-purchase of balance items – No breach of contract by petitioner railways – Arbitrator’s award disregarding contract terms vitiated by illegality and perversity – Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2-A) of the Act invoked [Paras 22-29, 35-41].

Interest Award – Clause 15.4 of bid document barred interest claims – Section 31(7) of the Act permits interest only if not otherwise agreed by parties – Arbitrator’s award of interest beyond contract terms held illegal and beyond jurisdiction – Judgments cited reinforcing arbitrator’s inability to grant interest in contradiction to contract [Paras 37-40].

Decision – AP No.105 of 2021 allowed – Arbitral award dated September 24, 2020, set aside – No order as to costs – Directions for urgent certified copies issuance upon compliance [Paras 44-46].

Tenancy and Possession – Recovery of Premises – Plaintiff company, lawful tenant of the suit premises, sought recovery of possession from defendants – Defendant No.1 initially permitted temporary occupation but failed to vacate as promised – Defendant No.1 inducted third parties into premises without authority – Court held that plaintiff entitled to recovery of possession and defendants to vacate [Paras 1-19].

Mesne Profits – Enquiry Ordered – Special Officer appointed to ascertain mesne profits due to unauthorized occupation – Court directed an enquiry to determine the amount payable to plaintiff – Remuneration for Special Officer to be initially borne by plaintiff but recoverable from defendants [Para 20].

Decision – Decree for recovery of possession granted – Defendants directed to hand over vacant possession – Enquiry into mesne profits ordered to be completed within four months – Case listed for further hearing post submission of enquiry report [Paras 21].

Withholding of DCRG – Rule 3A of Part III KSR – Legality of withholding DCRG pending judicial proceedings – Tribunal found withholding DCRG illegal when no judicial proceedings were instituted – Quashment of vigilance case – Original petition challenging Tribunal’s order granting interest on withheld DCRG dismissed [Paras 1-17].

Right to Interest on Delayed DCRG – Equitable Considerations – Despite absence of statutory provision, interest on delayed DCRG payment justified under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300 of the Constitution – Precedents support payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits [Paras 11-15].

Vigilance Proceedings – Quashing of FIR – Respondent absolved of charges – No misconduct found – Government’s earlier admission of respondent’s innocence pivotal in deciding entitlement to interest [Paras 3, 9-10, 15].

Decision:Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders by Tribunal upheld – State directed to comply with Tribunal’s direction to pay interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment [Paras 16-17].

Education Law – Examination Results Cancellation – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Lucknow University’s negligent conduct in withholding a student’s B.Sc. results and subsequent failure to communicate the cancellation of exams – High Court quashes University’s actions as arbitrary and illegal – Petitioner awarded costs for damages to educational prospects due to the University's negligence – [Paras 1-24].

Administrative Law – Non-communication of orders – Order dated 21.05.2012 not communicated to the petitioner, rendering it non-est and non-existing – Subsequent orders based on the non-communicated order deemed illegal and arbitrary – University’s failure to conduct a proper inquiry and provide an opportunity to the petitioner criticized – [Paras 10-21].

Cost Imposition – High Court imposes compensatory costs of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University for negligent actions that caused delay and harm to the petitioner’s educational career – Purpose of costs to discourage mala fide actions and compensate for inconvenience and expenses caused to the petitioner – [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The actions of Lucknow University, including the non-communication of essential orders and negligent conduct, were in gross violation of natural justice principles – The University is ordered to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within two months – [Para 24].

Family Pension – Entitlement of Disabled Dependent – Petitioner, suffering from 60% disability, claimed family pension following the death of his mother. His claim was rejected by the Senior Accounts Officer on grounds of his prior ability to run a public call office (PCO). The High Court found the rejection improper, noting the petitioner’s entitlement under the government order dated 20.05.1997. It held that the committee assessing the claim lacked the requisite medical expertise to override the Chief Medical Officer’s disability certificate and emphasized the validity of such certificates unless questioned by a medical board or higher medical authority [Paras 1-12].

Medical Evidence – Validity and Assessment – The committee’s decision, lacking medical expertise, was deemed unsustainable. The court underscored that disability assessments for pension purposes should be conducted by qualified medical professionals and not by administrative officers without medical training [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed. The rejection order dated 12.11.2020 was set aside. The respondents were directed to grant family pension to the petitioner within one month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order [Paras 12-13].