Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – GST Registration Suspension – Requirement of Landlord Consent – Tenant Rights – Suspension and Cancellation – The petitioner, M/s Crystal Beverages, challenged the order-cum-show cause notice dated 10.07.2024, suspending its GST registration over alleged unauthorized use of additional premises due to a lack of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the property owner – The petitioner argued that GST rules do not mandate a landlord’s NOC for adding additional business premises [Paras 1-3, 16].

Alternative Remedy and Writ Petition Admissibility – The respondent contended the writ petition should not be entertained due to an alternative remedy – The court, referring to PHR Invest Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others (2024), ruled that the immediate suspension affecting business operations justified judicial intervention under Article 226, despite alternate remedies [Paras 11-15].

Legal Requirement for Landlord’s Consent – The court found no provision under Rule 19 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requiring a landlord's NOC for adding additional places of business to an existing GST registration – Further, Rule 8 of the GST Rules, cited by the respondent, pertains only to the initial registration of the primary business location and cannot be extended to amendments or additional locations [Paras 4-5, 17-18].

Civil Dispute Impact on GST Registration – The court emphasized that landlord-tenant disputes should not influence GST registration – State authorities should not favor either party, as it could violate Article 14 of the Constitution – Court held that subsequent landlord disputes cannot justify suspension of GST registration, as it would compromise the business’s right to operate freely under Article 19(1)(g) [Paras 19-20].

Non-compliance and Grounds for Cancellation – Citing Section 29(2) of the GST Act, the court observed that no specific provision in GST rules mandated NOC submission for additional premises as a ground for cancellation – The petitioner’s full compliance with GST laws and timely tax payments further supported that the cancellation grounds were inapplicable here [Paras 6, 21-23].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – The order-cum-show cause notice dated 10.07.2024 was quashed, and the GST registration was reinstated – Petitioner permitted to continue business operations without further interruption [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Appeal Challenged – The appellant, a Food Inspector, challenged the acquittal of the accused by the trial court on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was improperly granted – Held: The trial court's finding that the sanctioning authority did not possess the required authority was upheld as the sanction was not in compliance with Section 20(1) of the Act – It was observed that the absence of valid sanction rendered the prosecution unsustainable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 8-13, 17].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope of Section 378 Cr.P.C. – Principles Restated – The appellate court must refrain from interfering with an acquittal unless the findings are patently perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence – Held: The trial court's decision was reasonable, and the appeal did not disclose any significant legal or factual error justifying interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-23].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. The trial court's order of acquittal is upheld. The records and proceedings are to be sent back to the trial court.

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Requirement of Pre-Deposit Under Section 148 NI Act – Petitioner challenged the Sessions Court’s order requiring a 20% pre-deposit of the fine for sentence suspension – Petitioner, a daily wage worker, claimed inability to comply due to financial constraints – Held: Courts have discretion to waive or modify the deposit condition if it unduly burdens the accused’s right to appeal, especially in cases of financial hardship; reliance placed on Supreme Court’s interpretation in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, allowing flexibility in exceptional cases [Paras 5-9].

Right to Appeal – Financial Constraints and Access to Justice – Petitioner argued inability to comply with pre-deposit conditions would bar her from pursuing her appeal, effectively denying her access to justice – Court agreed that requiring deposit from financially distressed appellants could prevent fair trial access and should be relaxed if undue hardship is proven – Held: Condition of 20% pre-deposit set aside in the interest of justice, allowing appeal to proceed without financial barrier [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The condition for a 20% pre-deposit of interim compensation is waived. The Sessions Judge is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit condition [Paras 14-15].
 

Right to Travel Abroad - Fundamental Right under Article 21 - Departmental Inquiry Not a Barrier – The petitioner, Neeraj Saxena, sought permission to travel abroad to visit his son in Singapore, despite a pending departmental inquiry. He argued that the right to travel is an inherent part of the "personal liberty" guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court agreed, holding that the pendency of departmental proceedings cannot infringe upon the petitioner’s right to travel unless restrictions are prescribed by law [Paras 12-13, 15].

Balance between Personal Liberty and Departmental Proceedings - Ensuring Compliance through Conditions – The Court found it essential to balance the petitioner’s right to travel abroad with the respondent’s interest in proceeding with the inquiry. To ensure compliance, the petitioner was granted permission to travel with conditions, such as returning by a specified date and resuming participation in the inquiry, thereby upholding both personal liberty and procedural compliance [Paras 16-18].

Reliance on Maneka Gandhi and Satish Chandra Verma Cases - Scope of Personal Liberty – Referencing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, the Court underscored that the right to travel abroad is encompassed within personal liberty. Restrictions on travel can only be imposed under legal procedure, and mere pendency of an inquiry does not justify curtailment of this right [Paras 14, 17].

Decision – Petition Allowed with Conditions – The Court directed the respondent to permit the petitioner’s travel from 30.10.2024 to 04.11.2024, subject to conditions: (i) submission of an undertaking to return to India by 06.11.2024, (ii) participation in the departmental inquiry upon return, and (iii) restriction against traveling to any country other than Singapore. Failure to comply would allow the department to pursue legal action [Para 20].
 

Abetment to Suicide – Prima Facie Evidence and Framing of Charges – Sustained - The petitioners contested the framing of charges under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC, arguing lack of evidence for abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC – Held: A prima facie case for abetment was established through the deceased’s suicide note and witness statements indicating sustained harassment and financial coercion by the petitioners – The Court, citing established judicial principles, reiterated that at the charge-framing stage, a detailed evidentiary examination is unwarranted, and a presumption of abetment can be inferred from circumstances that plausibly contributed to the deceased’s suicide [Paras 10-16].

Judicial Threshold for Framing Charges – Assessment of Material Evidence – High Court's Limited Interference - The Court noted that, per the Supreme Court’s guidelines, quashing charges at the initial stage should be an exception, not the rule, particularly when evidence presents a plausible link between the accused’s conduct and the alleged offense – Emphasized: Courts should permit prosecution to proceed if the foundational facts, taken at face value, suggest the offense, leaving a thorough assessment for the trial stage [Paras 18-19].

Role of High Court in Revisional Jurisdiction – Caution Against Quashing Proceedings - Reinforcing principles from State of M.P. v. Deepak and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court stressed that High Courts should avoid scrutinizing evidence intricately at the charge-framing stage, especially if doing so prematurely disrupts prosecution, as it risks dismissing cases where prima facie evidence exists – The Court thus upheld the trial court’s discretion in framing charges, highlighting that the trial was the proper forum for assessing credibility and determining guilt [Paras 25-27].

Decision - The petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial court’s order to frame charges under Sections 306 and 34 IPC was legally sound, with sufficient prima facie evidence justifying prosecution [Para 19].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under NDPS Act – Procedural lapses – Sealing and Chain of Custody – Acquittal Ordered – The appellants were convicted under Sections 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The court found significant procedural lapses, including the failure of the chemical examiner to re-enclose examined substances in sealed cloth parcels with FSL seals. This breach in the chain of custody created doubt about the integrity of the evidence and led to the acquittal under Sections 15 and 25 of the Act – Conviction under Section 483 IPC Upheld – The court upheld the conviction for counterfeiting a property mark due to conclusive evidence [Paras 16-23, 25].

Standard for Acquittal in Appeals – Scope of Appellate Review – The appellate court reiterated that when substantial procedural lapses or gaps in the chain of evidence exist, the benefit must go to the accused. The absence of homogenous mixing of the seized substance further weakened the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal on NDPS charges [Paras 20-24].

Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The convictions and sentences under Sections 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act are set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of these charges. The conviction under Section 483 IPC is upheld. Any fines deposited are to be refunded in accordance with the law. Appellants in custody should be released if not required in other cases after serving the sentence for the IPC charge.

Criminal Law – Defamation and Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which allowed a revision petition, setting aside an earlier Magistrate’s order that summoned the respondent to face trial for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC read with Section 120-B – Held: The Revisional Court correctly observed that as the respondent is a public servant, prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was required, as the complaint was filed while acting in discharge of official duties – The Revisional Court’s decision to set aside the summoning order is upheld, and the petition is dismissed [Paras 1, 3, 8, 10, 13, 14].

Defamation – Sufficiency of Evidence and Lowering of Reputation – Petitioner alleged that the respondent’s complaint caused him mental and financial loss, harassment, and lowered his social standing – However, court found that evidence provided by the petitioner and his witnesses only made general allegations without establishing that the petitioner’s reputation was lowered in the estimation of specific individuals – The evidence failed to satisfy requirements under Section 499 IPC, as the testimonies lacked specific claims of diminished reputation by any named person – Complaint did not establish prima facie commission of defamation, and the Magistrate’s order for summoning respondent lacked sufficient basis and application of mind [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12].

Official Duty and Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Respondent, as a public servant, filed a complaint regarding interference in an auction process, which was later closed as allegations were not substantiated – Revisional Court held that filing this complaint was part of respondent’s official duties, and protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. applies – Since there was no prior sanction from the State Government to prosecute the respondent, the Magistrate’s summoning order was invalid – Court affirmed that any act performed as part of public duty, even if ultimately dismissed, requires sanction for prosecution, per Section 197 Cr.P.C. [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Revisional Court’s order upheld – No grounds for interference as the order was within jurisdiction and well-reasoned – Complaint and subsequent order by Magistrate deemed legally unsustainable in absence of prior sanction.
 

Taxation Law - Transfer Pricing – Inclusion of Comparables – Functional Dissimilarity – Exclusion Ordered - The appeal raised the question of whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in including TCS E-Serve International Ltd., TCS E-Serve Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd. as comparables for ALP determination – The Tribunal upheld the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) decision, rejecting the appellant's argument of functional dissimilarity and brand value impact – Held: The comparables in question were functionally dissimilar due to brand value and large-scale operations, and thus should be excluded from the comparability analysis [Paras 2-10].

Arm's Length Price (ALP) – High Brand Value and Scale of Operations – Comparable Exclusion Upheld - TCS E-Serve Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd. were included by the TPO despite significant brand value and scale of operations – Following precedents set by the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Evalueserve Sez (Gurgaon) Pvt. Ltd. and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. BC Management Services Pvt. Ltd., such entities were excluded from comparability for having a competitive advantage not shared by the appellant [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The court allowed the appeal, holding that TCS E-Serve International Ltd., TCS E-Serve Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd. must be excluded from the list of comparables for the ALP determination for the Assessment Year 2010-11, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant [Paras 11-13].

Tender Process – Deviation from Tender Terms – Arbitrary Selection – The petitioner challenged the award of a tender for loading and transportation of coal, arguing that the respondents deviated from the tender conditions in selecting the final L-1 bidder through a random algorithm under the GeM Portal's General Terms and Conditions, instead of following Clause 25.2(B) of the tender document, which prescribes a "Reverse Auction" or submission of a revised price for final L-1 selection – Held: The terms of the NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) and Clause 25.2(B) override the GeM portal’s general conditions – The method of random selection of L-1 bidder through "Run L-1" was arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal [Paras 14-19].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference in Tender Matters – The court reiterated that while judicial review in tender matters is limited, it can intervene where there is arbitrariness, irrationality, or procedural impropriety – The random selection of L-1 bidder without following the prescribed tender terms constituted such impropriety, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 6-7, 19-21].

Decision: Petition allowed – The Letter of Acceptance dated 22.05.2024 issued in favor of respondent No. 4 is quashed – The respondents are directed to adhere to Clause 25.2(B) of the Tender Terms and proceed afresh with the selection of the L-1 bidder in accordance with the law [Para 22].