Bail – Cheating and Forgery Allegations – Regular Bail Granted – Applicants alleged to have induced complainants to lend and pay over ₹2.55 crores under false pretenses of loan repayment and property sale while properties were mortgaged – Allegations include forgery of title deeds and No Objection Certificates (NOCs) – FSL report confirmed NOC signatures were not genuine – Despite gravity of charges, petitioners had been in custody for 1 year and 4 months, investigation was complete, and evidence was primarily documentary – Held: Bail granted considering prolonged custody, completion of investigation, documentary nature of evidence, and parity with co-accused granted bail [Paras 1–4, 17–23].

Taxation Law - Export Supply – Compensation Cess – Exemption Denied – Levy Deferred – Petitioners challenged the levy of Compensation Cess at 160% on supply of branded tobacco to merchant exporters for export, which was otherwise taxed at a concessional GST rate of 0.1% under Notification Nos. 40/2017 and 41/2017 – Held: Though no separate exemption notification was issued under the Compensation Cess Act, such supply qualifies as “export of goods” and is zero-rated under Section 16 of the IGST Act – The levy is revenue-neutral as merchant exporters are entitled to refunds – Government directed to refer the issue to GST Council – Operation of impugned order kept in abeyance [Paras 94-118].

Interpretation of Export Supply – Supplies to Merchant Exporters Considered Exports – Court held that the movement of goods from factory to port for direct export by merchant exporters, without diversion, constituted a continuous chain of export – Cited Apex Court decisions in Amritsar Sugar Mills and Lord Krishna Sugar Mills to support the principle that more than one leg in a transaction may qualify as “export” – Such supplies are entitled to zero-rated benefits [Paras 97-99, 111].

Revenue Neutrality – Refund Mechanism – Levy Held Unjustified – Petitioners contended that any Compensation Cess paid would ultimately be refunded to merchant exporters, making the levy redundant and burdensome – Court agreed and held that levy causing working capital blockage undermines the policy of tax-free exports – Refused to apply exemption narrowly to exclude Compensation Cess while applying it to GST [Paras 100-107].

Judicial Direction – GST Council to Reconsider Compensation Cess Exemption – Although no exemption notification was issued under the Compensation Cess Act, Court invoked Section 11 of the Act, which applies GST and IGST provisions mutatis mutandis – Strongly urged GST Council to recommend exemption for Compensation Cess in line with existing exemptions under Notifications 40/2017 and 41/2017 – No coercive recovery till decision by Council [Paras 114-119].

Decision – Impugned Orders Kept in Abeyance – Petitions Disposed – The Court held that supply of goods by petitioners to merchant exporters constitutes zero-rated export supply – Impugned demand for Compensation Cess at 160% stayed and referred to GST Council for policy recommendation – Respondents restrained from initiating recovery if petitioners comply with exemption notification conditions and submit undertaking to deposit cess if the Council decides otherwise – Rule made absolute to this extent [Paras 116-120].

Civil Law - Title and Ownership – Failure to Prove Execution of Power of Attorney – Claim Dismissed – Plaintiff's claim of ownership through a 1993 sale deed allegedly executed via a power of attorney failed due to non-production of the power of attorney – The courts held that without proof of authority, the sale deed could not confer title – Further, the original owner had died in 1986, undermining the validity of the alleged transfer – The courts also noted the lack of mutation in plaintiff's name and absence of possession – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish ownership or right over the property [Paras 9-13, 17, 20-24, 26-27].

Challenge to Defendants' Title – No Pleadings or Relief Sought – Plaintiff Barred – Plaintiff did not challenge the registered sale deeds produced by the defendants in their written statement – An amendment application to do so was rejected and not pursued effectively – Held: Plaintiff is estopped from disputing defendants’ title without seeking appropriate relief [Paras 15-17, 24-27].

Documentary Evidence – Burden to Produce Foundational Documents – Plaintiff Failed – The sale deed relied on by the plaintiff lacked support from a valid, proven power of attorney – Courts emphasized that the burden lies on the party asserting title to prove foundational documents – Held: Sale deed could not be relied upon without proof of authority [Paras 22-24, 26].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court reiterated that concurrent factual findings cannot be interfered with unless there's perversity or a substantial legal question – Held: The case was devoid of any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC [Paras 28-32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Second Appeal was dismissed for want of substantial legal question and failure of the plaintiff to prove his case either on title or possession – A four-week stay of the order was granted to enable the appellant to challenge it further [Paras 32-34].
 

Civil Law – Retiral Benefits - Legal Heirship – Entitlement to Death Benefits – Declaration in SOP – Held Valid – The petitioner was declared as legal heir of the deceased teacher by a competent civil court, and such finding attained finality – The respondents’ failure to disburse benefits on grounds of memory-based data and lost service register was held arbitrary – Directed to reconstruct the register and pay dues – Family pension rightly denied as the petitioner did not fall within eligible category under Pension Rules [Paras 3, 6–9].

Reconstruction of Service Register – Decree in Civil Suit – Failure to Comply – Decree to reconstruct service register obtained by the petitioner in O.S. No. 327/2003 was not implemented by the authorities – Execution petition also allowed – Court held continued inaction unjustifiable and mandated compliance within one month [Paras 3, 6–9].

Family Pension – Rule 50(V) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 – Not Applicable to Siblings – The petitioner being the brother of the deceased was rightly denied family pension as he does not fall under Category-I – Claim for pension rejected while other monetary claims upheld [Paras 4, 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed in Part – Court directed respondent authorities to reconstruct the service register within one month and disburse death benefits within two months thereafter – Claim for family pension was rejected [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law - Temple Theft – Confession in Police Custody – Not Admissible – Acquittal Ordered – The prosecution relied primarily on alleged confessions of the accused made while in police custody and recoveries based on such statements – Held: Confessions made to police officers without a magistrate’s presence are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act – Discovery panchnamas were not supported by credible witnesses and were deemed unreliable – Acquittal ordered due to lack of admissible evidence and breach of procedural safeguards [Paras 21, 23].

Recovery of Stolen Property – No Independent Corroboration – Doubt Cast on Genuineness – The recovered ignots (melted ornaments) were allegedly produced by the son of the third accused under police pressure – He was not managing the goldsmith shop and claimed coercion – Held: Recovery not proven to be voluntary or linked to the alleged theft – Presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act not applicable – Accused acquitted [Paras 18, 21].

Panchnamas – Hostile Witnesses – Lack of Evidentiary Value – Majority of panch witnesses either turned hostile or failed to support key elements such as disclosure and seizure – Held: With panchnamas unproven and no corroboration, prosecution failed to establish chain of evidence – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Court held that past criminal records cannot substitute for legal proof in current case – Acquittal granted due to lack of cogent, credible, and admissible evidence [Para 23].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appeals Allowed – State's Appeal Dismissed – The conviction and sentence of all accused under Sections 457, 380, 413, and 114 IPC were set aside – Accused acquitted – State’s appeal for enhancement of sentence rendered infructuous and dismissed [Paras 24-25].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Concealment of Medical Condition – Grounds for Divorce – Held: Valid – The appellant-wife had pre-existing cyst and infertility issues, which she failed to disclose prior to marriage – Medical records and testimony established concealment – The Family Court correctly concluded that the deliberate non-disclosure of such crucial facts amounted to mental cruelty against the husband [Paras 23-24].

Cruelty – Physical and Mental Abuse – Divorce Justified – Respondent established instances of physical assault and mental harassment including threats and violent behavior by appellant – The evidence of cruelty was not rebutted effectively in cross-examination – Cumulative acts and continued abusive conduct caused mental agony – Divorce decree sustained [Paras 16, 24, 26].

Irretrievable Breakdown – Not Independent Ground – Still Relevant – Though not a standalone statutory ground, long separation of over ten years with no conjugal relations was rightly considered as supporting the cruelty claim – Courts rightly recognized prolonged separation as reflective of irreparable marital discord [Paras 27, 34].

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – In Matrimonial Disputes – No strict evidence rule – Oral testimony coupled with uncontroverted material sufficient – Family Court's approach consistent with settled legal principles on burden of proof in matrimonial cruelty cases [Paras 28-29].

Appellate Interference – Scope Limited – No Perverse Finding – High Court affirms Family Court findings as based on cogent reasoning and supported by record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-35].

Taxation Law - Capital Gains – Timing of Transfer under JDA – Section 2(47)(v) – Substantive Assessment from A.Y. 2007–08 – Not Taxable in A.Y. 2006–07 - Held: The transaction under the unregistered Joint Development Agreement dated 23.11.2005 did not amount to “transfer” under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in A.Y. 2006–07 as there was no development activity in that year – Capital gains to be computed in subsequent assessment years based on actual transfer of constructed property [Paras 1–4, 50–53, 104–105].

Section 80IB(10) Deduction – Applicability of Section 80AC – Deduction Allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 Only - Held: Benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) could not be denied for A.Y. 2006–07 as Section 80AC was not yet in force – However, for A.Ys. 2007–08 onwards, deduction not allowable as no claim was made in returns filed under Section 139(1) as mandated by Section 80AC – Remedy left open for collateral challenge to Section 80AC in separate proceedings [Paras 12, 90–104, 118–120].

Bogus Expenditure – Cost of Improvement – Remanded for Fresh Verification – Held: Assessee failed to substantiate Rs. 4.52 crore cost claimed via M/s. Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd., a suspected hawala operator – Tribunal rightly remanded issue to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting procedural lapses and non-disclosure of documents to assessee [Paras 25, 64–65, 71–72].

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) – Justified Reduction – Tribunal's Discretion Upheld - Penalty for concealment of income reduced from 300% to 100% by CIT(A) and upheld by ITAT – High Court found no perversity in exercise of discretion by lower authorities [Paras 28, 39–41].

Suppression of Income – Re-routing via Related Party – Assessee Found Liable - Managing Director’s son introduced as partner in Developer Firm received Rs. 25 crore consideration – Held: This was diversion of company’s capital gains, not substantiated in returns – Tribunal correctly upheld substantive assessments in A.Y. 2007–08 onwards [Paras 16–20, 62–63, 73–74].

Decision – Partial Relief to Assessee – Deduction allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 – Dismissal of appeals for A.Ys. 2007–08 to 2011–12 – Appeals of Department allowed for statistical purposes – Assessee given liberty to challenge Section 80AC separately under Article 226 [Paras 120–124].

Land Acquisition Compensation – Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Solatium and Interest – Applicability of Tarsem Singh Judgment – Benefits Granted - Petitioners whose lands were acquired under the National Highways Act were denied statutory benefits of solatium and interest by the Arbitrator – Relying on the binding precedent in Tarsem Singh, the High Court held Petitioners entitled to full statutory benefits – Held: Petitioners are to be granted solatium and interest per the 2013 Act within four months [Paras 3, 5, 13, 20].

Alternate Remedy – Availability Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Not a Bar – Inefficacious Remedy - High Court rejected NHAI’s objection that Petitioners should have approached the appellate forum under Section 37 – Held: Where such forum is incapable of granting the relief due to settled precedent (Rishabhkumar), Article 226 jurisdiction can be invoked directly [Paras 6-10, 17].

Binding Precedent – Application of Supreme Court Judgment – Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution – Mandate to All Authorities - The Court reaffirmed that law declared in Tarsem Singh is binding on all courts and authorities under Articles 141 and 144 – Rejection of Misc. Application by the Supreme Court to limit applicability further strengthens entitlement from original acquisition date [Paras 15, 19].

Judicial Discretion – High Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – Writ Entertained Despite Arbitration Proceedings – Statutory Reliefs Only – Since claim was limited to statutorily mandated solatium and interest, no factual disputes involved – Writ jurisdiction rightly exercised despite pending or concluded arbitral proceedings [Paras 12, 16-18].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Direction to Pay Solatium and Interest – The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the competent authority and NHAI to compute and disburse 100% solatium and interest at 12% p.a. on compensation amounts within a period of four months – Non-compliance would entail interest at 6% p.a. beyond the stipulated period [Paras 20-21].

Election Law – Challenge to Electoral Roll – Maintainability of Election Petition – Not Barred – Petition Alleges Illegal Inclusion of 587 Ineligible Voters Influenced by Candidate – Court held that objections to electoral roll alleging illegality and undue influence, if they materially affect the result of election, can be tried in an election petition – No absolute bar under Representation of People Acts to challenge electoral roll when no alternate remedy is available [Paras 5-6, 11, 14, 18-20].

Cause of Action – Material Particulars Pleaded – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Not Justified – Election petition alleged material facts including influence over institutions and registration of ineligible pre-primary and primary school teachers as voters – Narrow margin of 208 votes between petitioner and returned candidate substantiated cause for trial – Pleadings sufficient to proceed with trial – Rejection at threshold stage refused [Paras 5, 20-21].

Interpretation – Election Includes Entire Process – Reiterated that 'Election' encompasses stages having bearing on result – Irregularities in voter inclusion, if proven to affect outcome, are within scope of challenge under election petition – Referenced apex court jurisprudence on scope of Article 329(b) and interpretation of election process [Paras 7-10, 13].

Decision – Application for Rejection of Election Petition Dismissed – Court found petition discloses sufficient cause of action – Allegations of illegal influence and improper voter registration warrant full trial – Application dismissed with liberty to parties to contest on merits [Para 21].