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].
 

Taxation Law – Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration – Validity of Show Cause Notice – The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his GST registration, arguing that it was cancelled with retrospective effect without valid reasons or proper notice – The court found that the Show Cause Notice issued on 06.02.2024 lacked essential details, such as the officer's name and the location of the hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice – The court emphasized that at least three opportunities for a personal hearing must be provided as per the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017, which was not adhered to in this case – Held: The cancellation order dated 25.05.2024 is unsustainable due to non-compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 6-10].

Non-Existence of the Taxpayer – Temporary Suspension of Business – The petitioner’s business was alleged to be non-existent at the registered address, leading to cancellation – The petitioner explained that the business was temporarily closed due to health issues and travel, which did not warrant cancellation – Held: Temporary absence from the place of business does not justify the conclusion that the entity was non-existent – Cancellation order and subsequent rejection of revocation application are quashed [Paras 17-18].

Demand for Outstanding Penalty – Rejection of Revocation Application – The respondents rejected the petitioner’s application for revocation on the grounds of non-payment of a penalty of Rs. 24,38,232/- – The court found that the penalty demand, raised in a separate proceeding, was still pending adjudication and could not be used as a ground for rejecting the revocation application – The court held that penalty proceedings are independent of the cancellation of GST registration, and any dues can be recovered without linking them to the status of registration [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Both the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 06.02.2024 and 07.08.2024, as well as the cancellation orders dated 25.05.2024 and 27.08.2024, are quashed – The petitioner’s GST registration is directed to be restored – Respondents are, however, free to initiate fresh proceedings for tax recovery, if necessary, in accordance with the law [Paras 18-19].

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].

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].
 

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 - 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 Law - Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal – Conviction Under IPC and MCOC Act – Applicant's Bail Granted – Applicant sought suspension of sentence pending appeal after being convicted by the Special Court for offenses under sections 302 read with 120B IPC, and sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC Act) – Applicant received four life sentences and a fine of Rs. 16,00,000 – Court found material discrepancies in evidence and reliance on prior judgments improper – Court granted bail, suspending the sentence pending appeal, citing lack of direct evidence against the applicant, reliance on inadmissible evidence from a prior case, and procedural lapses in evidence collection and sanction [Paras 1, 2, 13, 19, 25, 26].

Alleged Crime and Extortion Involvement – Circumstantial Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Prosecution alleged the murder of hotelier Jaya Shetty by an organized crime syndicate led by the applicant, for extortion demands unmet by the deceased – Witnesses (P.W.4, P.W.10, and P.W.22) provided testimonies on extortion calls and threats from applicant’s associate Hemant Pujari – Witnesses failed to confirm a direct nexus between the applicant and the extortion calls – Testimonies contained contradictions, and crucial witness Bala Shetty was not examined, leading to missing links in the chain of evidence, which weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 4, 13, 18, 20, 23].

Inadmissible Evidence and Misuse of Prior Judgments – Special Court's reliance on a prior MCOC case (MCOC Special Case No.13 of 2001) and a confessional statement from co-accused Pramod Dhonde, recorded separately and inadmissible, was deemed erroneous by the High Court – The applicant was not jointly tried with Dhonde, making this confessional statement legally inapplicable – High Court cited Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, highlighting that such evidence could not be used against the applicant [Paras 14, 19].

Irregularities in Evidence Submission – Certified Copies and Tape Recordings – High Court noted that critical documents (Exhibits 39A-39C, 40A-40G) were certified copies of photocopies introduced post-prosecution evidence and were not authenticated originals – Tape recordings submitted as evidence were not validated by original sources, further compromising evidentiary standards – Court cited Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, underscoring the inadmissibility of such unverified recordings in criminal proceedings [Paras 18, 24].

Issues with Prior Approval and Sanction under MCOC Act – Prior approval for prosecution under MCOC was ambiguous, referencing multiple accused but lacking specificity on the applicant’s involvement – Approval and sanction orders appeared to focus on other alleged syndicate members without clear evidence linking the applicant – This procedural ambiguity raised questions about the legal validity of the MCOC charges against the applicant [Paras 6, 25].

Decision – Bail granted, suspending sentence pending appeal – Court required the applicant to furnish a bond, provide contact details, and refrain from leaving the jurisdiction without permission – Conditions set for prosecution to seek bail cancellation if violated – Application allowed with specified conditions pending appeal outcome [Paras 26-28].

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].

Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – Maintainability of Application for Rejection of Plaint – The petitioners (defendants) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint in a suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff) seeking declaration of title by adverse possession and injunctive relief – The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the suit had not yet been admitted, rendering the application premature – Held: Once a suit has been registered and notice has been issued to the defendant, an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. is maintainable, even without filing a written statement – Trial court erred in deeming the application premature, as registration and issuance of notice are sufficient to consider such an application [Paras 2, 9-10].

Right to File for Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – The petitioners argued that the trial court’s refusal to consider their application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. was contrary to law – Held: Defendants have a right to file for rejection of the plaint once the suit is registered and notice is served, irrespective of whether the suit is admitted – The trial court’s decision was against both factual findings and established law, necessitating interference by the High Court [Paras 3-4, 10].

Suit Based on Adverse Possession – Prerequisites for Maintainability – The respondent’s suit claimed title based on adverse possession and sought injunction – The petitioners contended that the plaintiff’s claim lacked legal foundation for adverse possession, thus warranting rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – Held: The trial court must examine the merits of the application for rejection of plaint to determine if the plaint discloses a cause of action under adverse possession [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Remand to Trial Court for Fresh Consideration – The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. afresh, after providing both parties an opportunity to be heard.