GST Registration – Retrospective Cancellation – Petitioner’s Registration Cancelled Retrospectively to 01.07.2017 – Application for Cancellation Rejected Without Specific Reason – Show Cause Notice Issued Without Specific Reason or Date for Hearing – Impugned Order Contradictory, No Material for Retrospective Cancellation – Court Held Cancellation Should Not Be Retrospective Without Proper Justification [Paras 1-14].

Compliance and Procedure – Petitioner No Longer Interested in Business – Registration to be Cancelled from Date of Application for Cancellation – Proper Officer’s Satisfaction Must be Based on Objective Criteria – Retrospective Cancellation Impacts Customers’ Input Tax Credit – Court Modified Order to Cancel Registration from 06.05.2019 [Paras 15-17].

Recovery of Dues – Respondents Not Precluded from Recovering Any Tax, Penalty, or Interest Due – Proper Notice and Hearing Required for Retrospective Cancellation [Para 18].

Decision:

Petition Disposed of – The impugned order dated 27.01.2021 was modified to cancel the registration from 06.05.2019. The respondents are not precluded from taking steps for recovery of any due tax, penalty, or interest following proper notice and personal hearing​​.

Habeas Corpus - Custody of Minor Child - Welfare of Child – Criminal Allegations of Dowry Harassment – Habeas corpus petition filed for the custody of a minor child – Custody taken by father alleged to be forceful – Consideration of child's welfare paramount – Two-month-old child taken from mother, who is alleged to have been subjected to cruelty for dowry – Supreme Court and High Court precedents prioritize child’s welfare over legal rights of parents – Held, custody to be handed to mother considering tender age and necessity of maternal care – Court directs compliance with visitation rights for father. [Paras 1-39]

Role of Parents in Custody – Analysis – Held – Petitioner (mother) alleged forceful taking of the child by respondent no.6 (father) – Father's custody claimed to be lawful by petitioner’s prior consent – Examined welfare needs of child, concluded welfare better secured with mother due to tender age and need for maternal care – Court recognizes the necessity for financial support by father, regardless of custody outcome. [Paras 1-39]

Decision - Custody Awarded to Mother – Habeas Corpus Writ Petition allowed – Court orders transfer of custody to the mother within seven days – Chief Judicial Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh to ensure compliance – Father granted visitation rights twice a week. [Paras 34-39]

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Set Aside – Criminal Appeal against Trial Court's conviction for murder – Allegation of killing brother over property dispute – Evidence purely circumstantial with no direct eyewitness account – Prosecution's failure to establish motive convincingly – Suspicion alone insufficient for conviction – Held that chain of circumstances not complete to exclude hypothesis of innocence – Appellant acquitted.

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – Analysis – Held – Prosecution failed to provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to link the appellant conclusively to the crime – Established principles demand exclusion of every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused – Appellant's presence and conduct insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 28-32]

Recovery of Weapon and Clothes – Admissibility – Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Held – Recovery of the axe and blood-stained clothes did not meet the legal standards for admissibility – Prosecution failed to prove the exact disclosure statement as required under law – Recovery of items from open, accessible place further weakens the evidence. [Paras 32-40]

Conduct of Accused – Relevance under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Held – Conduct of the accused in recovery of items noted but insufficient to form sole basis for conviction – Apex Court’s caution that conduct alone cannot establish guilt for serious offenses like murder applied – Benefit of doubt granted. [Paras 41-46]

Abscondence of Accused – Legal Implications – Held – Mere abscondence cannot be construed as conclusive proof of guilt – Innocent individuals may also abscond due to fear of wrongful arrest – Not a determinative factor in absence of solid evidence. [Para 45]

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Incriminating Circumstances – Failure to Put to Accused – Held – Crucial recovery evidence not presented to the appellant during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Violates legal principles ensuring fair opportunity for defense – Weighs in favor of acquittal. [Para 44]

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted. The trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC is overturned due to insufficient evidence and lack of conclusive proof. Appellant's bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged. Compliance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. required within 15 days.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 80/2024 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi for offences under Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act – Information received regarding drug peddlers leading to the arrest of co-accused and recovery of 1010 grams of heroin – Petitioner named during the interrogation of co-accused – Petitioner alleged to be involved in drug trafficking syndicate – Petitioner absconding and failed to respond to notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Application for anticipatory bail rejected. [Paras 3-13]

Evidence – Confessional Statements and Corroborative Material – Confessional statements of co-accused – WhatsApp conversations and Call Detail Records (CDRs) examined – Evidence indicating prima facie involvement of the petitioner – Court held that custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the entire drug syndicate. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Rejection of Anticipatory Bail – Court found no ground for granting anticipatory bail – Investigation at a nascent stage – Risk of tampering with evidence if bail granted – Application dismissed. [Para 13]

Civil Procedure Code – Condonation of Delay – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Petitioners failed to file written statements within the prescribed period of 120 days as per Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Petitioners sought condonation of delay of 125 days citing personal hardships and unavoidable circumstances – Trial Court dismissed the applications finding the reasons unsatisfactory – High Court held that procedural timelines should not impede justice where sufficient cause is shown – Delay condoned subject to costs. [Paras 1-22]

Condonation of Delay – Principles – High Court emphasized the directory nature of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as interpreted in Kailash v. Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480 – Held – Courts must balance procedural compliance with the interest of justice – Exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons provided by the petitioners warrant condonation of delay. [Para 16-21]

Decision – Application for Condonation of Delay Allowed – High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and directed that the written statements be taken on record – Imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- each on petitioners payable to the respondent before the Trial Court. [Para 21-22]

Sexual Harassment at Workplace – Implementation of POSH Act – Writ Petition seeking directions to ensure compliance with POSH Act by constituting ICC – Court directs Respondent No.1 to take action as per POSH Act – ICC constituted, proceedings initiated but delayed – Petitioner’s identity to be protected – Directions issued for further proceedings despite winding up of the Respondent company – Applicability of Vishaka guidelines reaffirmed. [Paras 1-14]

Direction to Authorities – POSH Act – Court emphasizes the duty of authorities to ensure proper functioning of ICC in companies – Transfers case to appropriate jurisdiction for effective redressal – Failure of company to constitute ICC is no ground to leave complaints unaddressed – Orders issued to proceed with the complaint even if the company is wound up – Complainant’s protection under POSH Act ensured. [Paras 10-12]

Decision: Court directs Respondent No.1 to take action per the POSH Act and ensures ICC constitution. Application to implead additional respondent (CFO) allowed. Further proceedings directed with protection of petitioner’s identity. No merits addressed on the case. [Paras 12-14]

Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition – RTI Act – Section 8(1)(j) – Forum Conveniens – Petitioner challenged the CIC’s order refusing disclosure of attendance records under the RTI Act. The court highlighted the principle of forum conveniens, noting that the SEEPZ-SEZ and concerned authorities were located in Mumbai, thus the High Court of Bombay was the appropriate forum. Petition dismissed on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and lack of merit. [Paras 4-6]

Right to Information – Exemption from Disclosure – Personal Information – RTI request for attendance records deemed personal information. Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of personal information unless justified by larger public interest. The CPIO correctly invoked Section 11 to seek consent from consultants, some of whom objected to disclosure. CIC upheld the CPIO’s decision, finding no overriding public interest. [Paras 7-11]

Personal Information – Definition and Scope – Court referred to Supreme Court rulings in Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, defining personal information broadly to include professional records and performance evaluations. Such information is protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy unless public interest demands disclosure. [Paras 8-10]

Motivation Behind RTI Request – Judicial notice taken of petitioner’s status as a disgruntled employee, suggesting RTI application aimed at settling personal scores rather than genuine public interest. [Para 12]

Decision – Petition dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of public interest in disclosure of requested information. [Paras 6, 11, 13]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 42/2015 – Dispute between parties found to be civil in nature – Petitioner alleged to have illegally occupied property despite expired license agreement – Court held no ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust established – Criminal proceedings deemed abuse of process of law [Paras 1-22].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Civil disputes being converted into criminal cases – Supreme Court guidelines discourage using criminal prosecution to settle civil disputes – Court quashes FIR based on predominant civil nature of dispute and concurrent civil suits pending – Emphasis on distinguishing civil remedies from criminal prosecution [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Quashing of FIR – Held – FIR No. 42/2015 quashed as it constituted an abuse of legal process – The dispute, primarily civil in nature, is being addressed in civil courts – Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil matters – Observations made to have no bearing on ongoing civil suits [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against the conviction for the murder of Nem Singh – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Recovery of axe and blood-stained clothes from appellant’s house deemed insufficient as primary evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Conviction also questioned due to lack of clear motive and chain of evidence [Paras 1-48].
Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – Emphasis on the need for a complete chain of evidence excluding any hypothesis of innocence – Court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – The importance of motive in circumstantial cases reaffirmed [Paras 30-31].
Recovery Evidence – Admissibility and Relevance – Critique of the lower court’s reliance on recovery of weapons and clothes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Absence of proper procedural adherence for disclosure statements – Court noted that conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act cannot solely ground a conviction [Paras 32-44].
Abscondence of Accused – Not sufficient for Conviction – Court held that mere abscondence cannot lead to a firm conclusion of guilt, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate charges [Paras 45-46].
Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant’s bail bonds canceled and sureties discharged [Para 48].