Rent Law – Eviction – Valid Service of Petition – Revision petition challenging eviction order under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Tenant contended that petition was served without accompanying documents – Lower court ordered eviction without ensuring documents were served – High Court holds that valid service under Section 18-A requires serving all documents filed with the petition – Physical service of summons without documents is not valid – Eviction order set aside – Directions for landlord to serve documents and tenant to file leave to defend within prescribed period. [Paras 1-10]

Eviction Proceedings – Summary Procedure – Tenant's Right to Defend – Section 18-A of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act mandates serving of documents with summons – Tenant entitled to know documents relied upon by landlord – Non-service of documents invalidates service of summons – High Court emphasizes procedural fairness, sets aside eviction order for lack of valid service. [Paras 4-6]

Decision – Setting Aside Eviction Order – Court sets aside lower court's eviction order due to procedural irregularities – Directs landlord to serve all documents filed with petition within 2 weeks – Tenant to file leave to defend within 15 days of receiving documents – Case to proceed in accordance with law based on valid service and tenant's defense. [Paras 8-10]

Service Tax – Penalty for Non-Payment – Appeal against Tribunal's order imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay in depositing service tax – Service tax collected for legal consultancy services, which were not taxable at the time of collection – Appellant deposited the amount after insistence by Revenue – Tribunal held willful suppression of facts – High Court holds that penalty under Section 78 not applicable as service was not taxable at the relevant time – Appeal allowed, penalty set aside. [Paras 1-12]

Interpretation of Statute – Section 68 and Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 – Service tax liability arises only for taxable services – Amount collected as service tax for non-taxable service to be deposited under Section 73A(2) – No willful suppression or intent to evade tax when service itself is not taxable – Penalty provisions of Section 78 not attracted. [Para 8-10]

Decision – Penalty Imposition – Court sets aside the penalty imposed on the appellant – Finds no basis for willful suppression or intent to evade tax as the legal consultancy service was not taxable when the invoices were raised – Appeal allowed. [Para 12]

Taxation Law – VAT on Sale of Flats – Challenge to Validity of Sections and Rules – Developers contest inclusion of land value in VAT – Held, building contracts involving sale of flats include an element of sale of goods – Such contracts are species of works contracts under Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution – VAT applicable only on value of goods incorporated in works contract post-agreement – Section 9 and Rule 49 providing composition scheme found optional and valid – Section 42 ensuring tax liability of contractor and sub-contractor not arbitrary – Directions for State to amend Rules to exclude land value explicitly from VAT calculation. [Paras 1-47]

Works Contract – Interpretation – Definition under Constitution and VAT Act – Held, contracts for building flats include construction activities covered under 'works contract' – Transfer of property in goods involved in such contracts taxable – Immovable property value, services, and charges incurred before agreement not part of taxable turnover – State Legislature can prescribe a formula for deductions of such charges from taxable value. [Para 30-31]

Decision – Validity of VAT Imposition on Land Value – Court holds VAT imposition on land value unconstitutional – Orders amendment of Rules to exclude land value from taxable turnover – Upholds Section 42 and Section 9 with Rule 49 as valid for ensuring tax payment and providing optional composition scheme. [Paras 47, 50]

Arbitration Law – Limitation Period – Condonation of Delay – State filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to set aside an arbitral award along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 342 days – Held, Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act prescribes a specific period of limitation which excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by operation of Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act – Petition filed by State to set aside award was barred by law due to delay and liable to be rejected. [Paras 1-6]

Judicial Interpretation of Limitation – Analysis – Held – The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the specific period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Reference to cases like Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewage Board v. Subhash Projects & Marketing Ltd. and Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. emphasizes that delay in filing an application under Section 34 cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period. [Para 6]

Decision – Allowing Revision Petition – Court rejects the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by the State as barred by law – Sets aside the order of the lower court which had allowed the limitation issue to be considered later. [Para 6]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Right to Reside in Shared Household – Petition challenging order directing petitioner-husband to provide part of house to respondent-wife – Wife alleged domestic violence and sought right to residence – Trial court directed provision of portion of house for wife – High Court held wife entitled to claim right to residence in shared household under Section 17(1) – Shared household includes house owned or rented by husband or joint family house where husband is a member – To avoid disruption in household, High Court directed husband to arrange suitable rented accommodation for wife and pay rent – Order to provide part of house quashed, direction for rented accommodation given. [Paras 1-25]

Domestic Violence – Interpretation of Shared Household – Definition of shared household under Section 2(s) – Includes house owned, rented by husband, or joint family property – High Court referred to Supreme Court ruling in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, clarified shared household should belong to or be taken on rent by husband or joint family property – Provided practical solution to accommodate wife's right while considering family dynamics. [Paras 6-12]

Decision – Providing Alternative Accommodation – High Court quashes trial court order directing provision of part of house – Directs husband to arrange adequate rented accommodation for wife and pay rent – Aims to balance rights under PWDV Act and family harmony – Husband directed to comply within three months, interim rent fixed at Rs. 6000 per month till arrangement. [Paras 22-25]

Excise Duty – Exemption – Appeals challenging rejection of refund for additional excise duty (AED) on High-Speed Diesel (HSD) – Appellant, a 100% export-oriented unit, claimed exemption under notification dated 31.03.2003 – Notification exempted certain duties of excise but did not explicitly cover AED under Finance Act, 1999 – Tribunal held AED was not exempted – High Court upholds Tribunal's decision – Exemption notifications must be explicit in including all relevant duties – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-16]

Interpretation of Statutes – Notification for Exemption – Finance Act, 1999 – Exemption notifications under Central Excise Act, 1944 must be clear and specific in including additional excise duties – AED under Finance Act, 1999 not covered by exemption notification dated 31.03.2003 – Tribunal's interpretation upheld. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Rejection of Refund Claims – Court dismisses appeals – Holds that the exemption notification did not cover AED on HSD – Confirms that refund claims rightly rejected as AED was not exempted by notification. [Para 16]

Service Law – Appointment – Acquittal from Criminal Charges – Petition challenging rejection of appointment to the post of Constable on grounds of past criminal charges – Petitioner acquitted for lack of evidence – Instructions dated 2.7.2007 and 13.11.2007 issued by DGP provide that candidates acquitted on technical grounds may not be considered for appointment – High Court holds that acquittal for lack of evidence is an acquittal on merit, not a technical ground – Petition allowed, directions to issue appointment letter. [Paras 1-20]

Employment Law – Acquittal on Merit – Interpretation – Instructions from DGP regarding non-consideration of candidates acquitted on technical grounds – High Court clarifies that acquittal for lack of evidence is considered on merit – Emphasizes distinction between technical acquittal and acquittal due to lack of evidence – Directions issued for appointment of petitioner as Constable. [Paras 6-13]

Decision – Allowance of Petition – Court sets aside impugned order rejecting appointment – Directs respondents to issue appointment letter to petitioner within 30 days – Appointment to relate back to date of similar candidates' appointments, with all consequential benefits except actual salary arrears. [Paras 20-21]

Civil Procedure – Filing of Written Statement – Order VII Rule 1 CPC – Petition against order striking off defense for non-filing of written statement within prescribed period – Written statement to be filed within 30 days of service, extendable to 90 days – Extension beyond 90 days not to be routine – High Court holds no date on record showing service of summons – Lower court adjourned case multiple times without application of mind – No grounds for further extension beyond 90 days shown – Petition dismissed, order of lower court upheld. [Paras 1-17]

Procedural Law – Extension of Time – Discretionary Powers – Provisions of procedural laws are directory, not mandatory – Extensions beyond 90 days must be for exceptional reasons and recorded in writing – Lower courts must exercise discretion judiciously – Routine extensions without valid reasons contrary to intent of expeditious trial – High Court emphasizes strict adherence to procedural timelines unless justified by exceptional circumstances. [Paras 8-12]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – High Court finds no merit in granting further extension for filing written statement – Dismisses petition challenging striking off defense – Affirms lower court’s order due to petitioners' failure to justify delay and lack of exceptional circumstances. [Para 17]

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against decree of divorce granted on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Husband alleged that wife misbehaved, insulted him and his family, and left matrimonial home without informing him – Also alleged that wife aborted child without his consent – Held, acts of cruelty, if any, by the wife stood condoned as she returned to matrimonial home and stayed for considerable time – Proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were preventive actions by police, not indicative of false complaints by wife – Wife's efforts to return to matrimonial home indicate lack of intention to permanently end matrimonial ties – Divorce decree set aside. [Paras 11-18]

Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty – Analysis – Held – Act of abortion by wife, even if considered cruelty, was condoned by husband as they continued cohabitation thereafter – Subsequent application by wife for rehabilitation in matrimonial home indicates her intent to reconcile, not to end marriage. [Para 11]

Divorce – Grounds of Desertion – Analysis – Held – Wife's actions and statements reflect her willingness to live with husband, negating claims of desertion – Temporary separations and preventive police actions under Cr.P.C. do not establish desertion – Intention to permanently end matrimonial relationship absent. [Paras 12-16]

Decision – Setting Aside Divorce Decree – Court sets aside decree of divorce granted by trial court – Finds no sustained grounds of cruelty or desertion – Orders husband to pay permanent alimony unsupported by evidence also set aside. [Para 18]