Interpretation of Rule 15 – Jharkhand Excise (Retail Rules 2022) – Imposing penalty on placement agencies for shortfall in Minimum Guarantee Revenue (MGR) – Court held Rule 15 should apply only when a placement agency fails to perform duties and obligations falling within its scope of work and causes monetary loss to JSBCL – Rule read down to mean liability of placement agency is confined to its scope of work and subject to principles of natural justice – [Paras 88-90]

Viability of Subordinate Legislation – Upholding Rule 15 – Presumption of intra vires nature of subordinate legislation – Judicial review parameters – Reading down the rule to conform with parent statute and constitutional principles – [Paras 72-74, 88-91]

Contractual Obligations – Jharkhand Excise Act, Retail Rules, and Agreement with Petitioners – Obligations under the agreement and rules cannot be contrary to the Jharkhand Excise Act and constitutional provisions – Contractual liabilities must align with the legislative framework and principles of natural justice – [Paras 82-84, 88-89]

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit – Petitioner Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. – Forfeiture due to non-participation after submitting bid – Held to be premature and without a proper hearing – Directed to initiate fresh proceedings if required, in line with legal principles – [Para 95]

Decision: Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, read down to limit the scope of penalizing placement agencies only in cases of non-performance causing monetary loss to JSBCL, in adherence to principles of natural justice.

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit by petitioner Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. Quashed, with liberty to respondent JSBCL to initiate fresh proceedings if deemed necessary.

All writ petitions allowed in the above terms.

Writ Petition – Quashing of Contempt Petition Order – Delhi High Court – Petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) disposing of Contempt Petition No. 294/2017 in relation to the provisional inclusion of petitioner’s name in the Select List for IAS promotion – High Court examines the validity of CAT’s order and UPSC’s stance on the matter. [Paras 1-13]

Provisional Inclusion in IAS Select List – Review – Delhi High Court reviews petitioner’s contention regarding his provisional inclusion in the IAS Select List – Analysis of relevant regulations and Tribunal’s directives – Consideration of UPSC’s and State Government’s responses on the petitioner’s integrity and pending disciplinary proceedings. [Paras 4-7]

Role of UPSC and State Government – Decision Making Process – Examination of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and State Government’s role in determining the inclusion of names in the IAS Select List – Discussion of regulatory provisions and the procedural implications of chargesheet issuance prior to the notification of the select list. [Paras 4.1-4.5]

Judicial Precedents – Scope of Contempt Proceedings – High Court refers to Supreme Court precedents (J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others, Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others) – Clarifies the scope and limitations of contempt proceedings in reviewing compliance with judicial orders. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition and Interim Direction Application – Delhi High Court concludes that no fault can be found with the Tribunal’s order – Petitioner’s liberty to seek remedy against UPSC’s order dated July 31, 2017, is upheld – Writ petition and related application dismissed as infructuous. [Para 13]

Arrest and Remand Justification - Petitioner's arrest under Section 19 of PMLA, justified based on incriminating evidence collected during investigation, including witness statements, approvers’ testimonies, digital evidence, and financial transactions indicating involvement in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 scam and subsequent laundering of proceeds from this policy [Paras 45-78, 104-107].

Arrest and Custodial Interrogation Justified – Writ Petition challenging arrest and remand order – Petitioner, the Chief Minister, arrested by Directorate of Enforcement in money laundering case linked to the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 – Arrest based on material indicating involvement in demanding kickbacks and formulation of the excise policy – Custodial interrogation deemed necessary due to non-compliance with nine summons over six months, the need to confront petitioner with evidence, and the impact on coaccused's trial [Paras 130-165].

Role in Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 – Petitioner allegedly involved in policy formulation favoring certain entities – Accused of seeking kickbacks in collaboration with other accused for policy changes, benefitting ‘South Group’ – Involvement based on statements of witnesses, including approvers, and digital evidence [Paras 45-57, 78].

Use of Proceeds of Crime in Goa Elections – Allegation of using about Rs. 45 crores in proceeds of crime from kickbacks for funding AAP's Goa election campaign – Corroborated by statements of hawala operators and candidates of Aam Aadmi Party [Paras 52-61, 78].

Statements under Section 50 of PMLA – Credibility and admissibility of statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA upheld – Importance in forming a strong prima facie case for money laundering against an accused – Statements of approvers significant despite allegations of unreliability [Paras 79-102].

Legality of Arrest under Section 19 of PMLA – Arrest and remand compliant with Section 19 of PMLA and Supreme Court's directives in Pankaj Bansal case – Grounds of arrest duly communicated and material supporting arrest furnished – Arrest necessitated by petitioner's repeated failure to comply with summons and need for interrogation [Paras 104-114].

Legality of Remand Order – Remand order not mechanical or routine – Specific reasons for remand included need for detailed interrogation, confrontation with evidence, and completion of investigation – Remand extended with petitioner's no objection [Paras 115-127].

Impact of Petitioner's Non-compliance – Non-compliance with summons contributed to delayed investigation, affecting co-accused's trial and investigation progress – No special interrogation privileges for petitioner as Chief Minister – Arrest timing linked to non-compliance rather than political considerations [Paras 128-156].

Decision – Petition dismissed, upholding the legality of the arrest and remand order – Courts focus on constitutional morality and legal principles, independent of political considerations [Paras 166-187].

Quashing of Section 153C Notices – Writ Petitions challenging validity – Notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 quashed for most petitioners - Held – Notices unsustainable when no incriminating material related to assessment years in question found during search - Section 153C empowers reopening of six assessment years immediately preceding year of search, subject to satisfaction that material impacts determination of total income for specific years - In most cases, satisfaction notes failed to establish connection between material discovered and assessment years in question - Impugned notices quashed, except for two cases where satisfaction notes specified relevant assessment years. [Paras 68-73]

Interpretation of Section 153C - Incriminating Material - Mandatory Satisfaction – Held – Satisfaction that material found during search has bearing on total income determination for specific assessment years is prerequisite for invoking Section 153C - Incriminating material's relevance to particular year(s) must be evident for valid Section 153C proceedings - Merely possessing power to reassess ten assessment years does not justify indiscriminate invocation of Section 153C without specific, relevant incriminating material for those years. [Paras 47-68]

Distinguishing Sections 153A and 153C – Procedural Mandates – Held – Section 153A mandates issuance of notice post-search for six preceding years plus relevant assessment year, leading to abatement of pending assessments - In contrast, Section 153C requires satisfaction regarding impact of discovered material on total income determination before initiating proceedings - Key distinction in procedural mandates and preconditions between the two sections emphasized. [Paras 37-44]

Application and Impact of Satisfaction Notes - Requirement for Specificity - Held – Satisfaction notes must record reasons how material discovered during search influences total income for particular assessment years - Generic invocation of Section 153C for entire block of ten years without specific incriminating material related to each year is legally impermissible. [Paras 55-61, 70]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Notices - Limited Exceptions – Court quashes majority of impugned notices under Section 153C for lack of specific incriminating material linked to assessment years in question - Exceptions in two cases where satisfaction notes adequately specified relevant assessment years - Rest of petitions allowed, two dismissed. [Paras 72-73]

GST Return and Late Fee – GST Amnesty Scheme – Interpretation – Writ Petitions challenging late fee for belated filing of GSTR-9C – Petitioners filed GSTR-9 returns belatedly, paid late fees as per Section 47 of the CGST/SGST Acts – Government introduced Amnesty Scheme waiving late fee beyond Rs. 10,000 for non-filers of GSTR-9 for FYs 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 – Contention regarding applicability of Amnesty Scheme to petitioners who filed returns before the commencement of the scheme – Held, Amnesty Scheme benefits extend to petitioners as they filed returns before the commencement of scheme – Late fee demands for belated filing of GSTR-9C held unjust and unsustainable – Directions issued to not collect late fee for delay in filing GSTR-9C – Petitioners not entitled to claim refund of already paid late fee over Rs. 10,000. [Paras 1-25]

Amnesty Scheme Under GST – Applicability – Analysis – Held, GST Amnesty Scheme aimed at reducing compliance burden and legal disputes – Applicable to taxpayers who filed GSTR-9 belatedly before commencement of scheme – Excessive late fees waived, encouraging compliance and easing burden on taxpayers. [Paras 9-10, 24-25]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Court directs cessation of notices seeking late fee for delay in filing GSTR-9C, subject to non-refundability of any late fee already paid over Rs. 10,000 [Final Order].

Workmen's Compensation - Appeal against order of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarding compensation to claimant - Claimant, a bus conductor, suffered chest pain during employment, sought medical attention, and met with an accident on the way to the hospital - Claim for compensation filed - Insurance company, appellant, challenges liability to indemnify subsequent owner of the bus and the claimant's entitlement to compensation - Argument that accident occurred beyond the scope of employment rejected - Principles of notional extension of employment applied - Accident deemed to have occurred during the course of employment - Liability of insurance company upheld - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-7]

Detention Order under COFEPOSA - Challenged by petitioner, wife of the detenu, Siraj V.E., under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) - Detention order based on search conducted on 19/6/2023 at M/s.Crescent Collection, Kochi, where foreign currencies of 700 U.A.E. Dirham and Indian currency amounting to Rs.5 lakhs were found and seized - Alleged violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) - Detaining authority's reliance on statements of individuals associated with Siraj, including Abdul Hameed, and WhatsApp chats - Petitioner contends lack of materials to infer FEMA violation - Court observes absence of evidence linking Siraj to FEMA violation, particularly noting Abdul Hameed's vague statements about Siraj's dealings - Court emphasizes necessity for concrete evidence of foreign exchange transactions to justify detention under COFEPOSA - Detention order set aside due to lack of substantial evidence, ordering detenu's immediate release, provided no other legal obligations exist.

Challenge to Recruitment Process – Petitioners, non-Punjab residents, challenged the recruitment advertisement (Annexure P-1) for 1746 constable posts claiming discrimination as no reservation was provided for candidates from other states – Held, petitioners eligible to apply under general/unreserved category – No entitlement to specific reservation for non-state residents [Para 2, 5].

Jurisprudence on Participation in Selection Process – Supreme Court precedents cited, establishing that participation in selection without initial objection bars candidates from contesting the process post-results – Referenced Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 which emphasizes non-entitlement to challenge a process post-participation if one has not been selected [Para 6].

Application of Constitutional Rights – Argument of violation of Articles 14 and 16 rejected – Court found no merit in claims of discrimination or unfairness in the selection process as open category was available to all [Para 7].

Decision:

Petition dismissed on grounds that petitioners participated in selection process without objection and lacked grounds to challenge post being unsuccessful – No constitutional rights violated.

Identity of Driver in Road Accident – Conviction Challenged – Failure to Establish Identity – Petitioner convicted for offences under Sections 279, 427, and 304-A IPC arising from a road accident – Conviction maintained in appeal – Revision filed against concurrent findings of conviction – Identity of petitioner as driver of offending vehicle disputed – Prosecution heavily reliant on testimonies of close relatives of deceased – Caution exercised in evaluating their testimonies – Material contradictions and improvements in testimonies of eyewitnesses noted – Testimonies deemed unreliable – Owner of offending vehicle turned hostile and denied producing accused before police – Prosecution failed to establish accused’s identity as driver beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside – Petitioner acquitted of charges and discharged from bonds. [Paras 4-17]

Decision: Revision allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted of charges and discharged from bonds. [Para 17]