Goods and Services Tax Act – Refund claim – Limitation period for filing refund application – Proper officer rejecting the petitioner's refund claim as barred by limitation – Petitioner assailing the rejection – Challenge to vires of Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules and paragraph 12 of the impugned Circular – Nature of deficiencies noted – Whether application for refund complete in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules – Application for refund accompanied by necessary documentary evidence – Proper officer requiring further documents and clarification – Whether limitation period stops running – Precedent of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India &Ors. relied upon – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, application for refund restored for consideration on merits. [Para 1-30]

Goods and Services Tax Act – Refund – Application for refund of IGST paid on zero rated supplies – Proper officer issuing deficiency memos pointing out defects and requiring clarifications – Proper officer rejecting refund claim on the ground of limitation – Whether the deficiencies render the application incomplete in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules – Nature of deficiencies noted – Whether the application was accompanied by required documentary evidence – Whether proper officer can withhold processing of refund claim based on deficiencies – Precedent of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India &Ors. considered – Refund application restored for consideration on merits. [Para 21-29]

Criminal Procedure - Supply of Documents - Petition under Section 482 CrPC to set aside Trial Court’s order refusing to provide documents not part of challan - FIR registered for offenses under Sections 376, 354, 354-A, 506, 120-B IPC - Petitioner sought documents including inquiry report and witness statements recorded by an investigating officer - Trial Court dismissed application, stating documents could be summoned at defense stage - Supreme Court guidelines and amended High Court Rules require list of 'un-relied' documents to be submitted with report under Section 173 CrPC - Held, non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements vitiates Trial Court order - Petition partly allowed, matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration in light of Supreme Court judgment and amended High Court Rules. [Paras 10, 12, 17]

Supply of Documents in Criminal Trials - Analysis - Held - Supreme Court's guidelines and amended High Court Rules mandate providing a list of documents not relied upon by the prosecution along with the report under Section 173 CrPC - Procedural safeguards ensure fair trial and prevent suppression of exculpatory evidence - Trial Court’s failure to consider these requirements warrants setting aside its order. [Paras 6, 7]

Decision - Setting Aside Trial Court’s Order - Court sets aside the impugned order, directing the Trial Court to reconsider the application for supplying documents not part of the challan, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines and the amended High Court Rules - Trial Court to decide afresh within two months. [Para 13]

Family Court Appeal – Divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and allegations of illicit relationships – Husband seeking dissolution of marriage – Allegations of extra-marital affair made by wife in written statement – Husband’s failure to prove instances of cruelty claimed – Husband also alleging mental cruelty based on false allegations in wife’s pleadings – Husband’s failure to mention mental trauma in his affidavit – Family court granting divorce – Appeal challenging the decision – Court’s analysis of precedents regarding false and scandalous allegations in pleadings – Husband’s lack of mention of mental trauma disentitling him to divorce on this ground – Court’s finding that unsubstantiated allegations didn’t necessarily prove malice – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside, divorce petition dismissed. [Para 1-58]

Arbitration Agreement – Prima facie consideration of the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement within the context of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Court's role in determining the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and referring parties to arbitration – Application filed by plaintiff challenging the validity of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) containing the arbitration agreement – Court's analysis of the validity, admissibility, and effect of the MoU – Plaintiff's denial of signatures and fraud allegations – Limitation and registration issues addressed – Arbitration Agreement deemed to exist and cover the dispute prima facie – Court referring parties to arbitration and dismissing the suit – Application allowed with costs. [Para 70]

Validity of Arbitration Agreement – Arbitration Agreement's status as severable and independent from the main document – Court's power to refer parties to arbitration even if the main document is not registered or properly stamped – Arbitration Agreement not rendered invalid due to the main document's status – Court's discretion to refer parties to arbitration under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act – Defendant's status as a signatory to the Arbitration Agreement despite not being a party to the MoU – Plaintiff's claims against defendant's lack of signatory status rejected – Defendant's involvement as a party to arbitration upheld. [Para 75]

Scope of Judicial Review – Prima facie determination of the existence and validity of an Arbitration Agreement at the Section 8 stage – Court's limited role in scrutinizing allegations of fraud or forgery at this stage – Court's consideration of conditions for the fraud exception to arbitration – Limited scope for the court to intervene in determining subject-matter arbitrability – Court's examination of allegations within the ambit of the Arbitration Agreement – Denial of prima facie validity of fraud allegations by the plaintiff – Court's referral of parties to arbitration based on the Arbitration Agreement. [Para 62]

Limitation – Court's consideration of limitation as a mixed question of facts and law – Court's discretion in deciding whether to decline reference to arbitration based on limitation – Application of the limitation principle under Section 8 of the Act – Court's authority to determine whether the claim is ex facie time-barred – Court's stance on considering limitation issues in a possible Counter-Claim scenario – Court's reference of parties to arbitration despite the plaintiff's limitation plea. [Para 66]

Stamping and Registration – Arbitration Agreement's admissibility and validity in relation to stamping and registration requirements – Court's examination of Indian Stamp Act provisions for adequately stamped instruments – Court's interpretation of Section 32(3) of the Indian Stamp Act – Effect of certification by the Collector on the instrument's admissibility – Arbitration Agreement's independent status from the main document's stamping and registration requirements – Plaintiff's claim on stamping and registration issues rejected. [Para 71]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act – Acquittal based on age determination – Appeal challenging judgment convicting appellant – Victim alleged consensual sexual relationship leading to pregnancy – Radiological report indicated victim’s age as 16 to 17 years – Marginal error allowed in determining age – Lack of conclusive medical evidence to prove victim’s age – Benefit of doubt given to accused – Acquittal granted under Section 6 of POCSO Act – Conviction set aside.

Age Determination – Appellant convicted for sexual offence under POCSO Act – Victim’s age crucial to establish applicability of POCSO Act – Prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence of victim’s age – Radiological report indicated age as 16 to 17 years – Margin of error in age determination considered – Benefit of doubt goes to accused – Lack of evidence to prove victim’s age as below 18 years – POCSO Act cannot be invoked – Conviction set aside. [Para 33]

Consensual Relationship – Prosecution alleged consensual sexual relationship – Victim claimed age of 14 during the incident – Victim’s age disputed, no conclusive evidence provided – Marginal error in age determination considered – Benefit of doubt given to accused – Lack of evidence to prove victim’s age as below 18 years – Consensual relationship not constituting offence under POCSO Act – Conviction set aside. [Para 34]

Conclusion – Appeal allowed – Accused acquitted and set at liberty – Conviction and sentence under Section 6 of POCSO Act set aside – Lack of conclusive evidence for victim’s age – Benefit of doubt granted to accused – Acquittal based on age determination and consensual relationship. [Para 36]

Equal Pay for Equal Work - Writ Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Claim for Parity in Pay Scale - Petitioners, teachers working in schools administered by the Punjab Wakf Board, sought parity in pay scales with teachers in other Islamia schools under the same board. The Court held that persons similarly situated are entitled to similar treatment, including similar pay if performing similar duties. Educational qualifications were considered relevant for determining pay scales. The writ petition was allowed, directing the Punjab Wakf Board to release the pay scale as per the petitioners' educational qualifications, with no interest on arrears awarded. [Paras 6-11]

Principle of Similar Treatment - Analysis - It was established that teachers imparting teachings in various Islamia schools, including the Islamia Senior Secondary School, Malerkotla, must be paid the same pay scale without discrimination. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle of law that similarly situated persons are entitled to similar treatment, including similar pay for similar duties. [Para 6]

Decision - Allowance of Writ Petition - The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondent-Board to fix the petitioners' salary after examining their educational qualifications and service records individually within four months. Arrears to be released up to the date of their service termination for those who have left the job. [Paras 7-11]

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 148 — Notice — Amalgamation of Companies — Legal principle — Approved scheme of amalgamation results in cessation of existence of amalgamating entity — Notices issued post amalgamation in the name of amalgamating company lack jurisdiction.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Adani Wilmar Ltd., Inox Wind Energy Ltd. — Established legal principle — Notices issued in name of amalgamating company after approval of amalgamation are fundamentally illegal and void.

Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2017-18— Notices issued to non-existent entity — Violation of established legal principle — Notices declared void and lacking jurisdiction - Judicial Observations — Relevance of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Adani Wilmar Ltd., Inox Wind Energy Ltd. In context of present case — Legal stance affirmed in precedent cases.

Implications of Decision — Previous notices rendered null and void due to issuance to non-existing entity — Jurisdiction of notices questioned and invalidated.

Petition allowed — Notices for assessment years 2014-15 to 2017-18 declared void — Invalidated notices set aside— Notices issued against established principle invalidated — Decision nullifies notices and sets aside invalidated ones.

Bail Application – Violation of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Commercial Quantity – Dismissal of Bail – Non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure provisions – Petitioner’s criminal history – Anticipatory injustice – Legislative mandates under Section 37 of NDPS Act – Pre-trial incarceration – Right to speedy trial – Trial court’s directions – Observations on merits and conclusion – Conditions for expediting trial – Dismissal of application but request for speedy trial – Order subject to petitioner’s conduct during trial proceedings.

Administrative Law - Jurisdiction and Authority – Writ Petition against reduction of compensation by Principal Secretary, Department of Power – Compensation originally assessed by District Magistrate – Government’s revision order lacks jurisdiction under the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act – District Magistrate is the competent authority for compensation assessment – Revision Petition improperly entertained.

Authority of District Magistrate - Compensation Assessment – Analysis – Held – The District Magistrate is the competent authority for assessing compensation for land acquisition under the Telegraph Act. The Principal Secretary lacked jurisdiction to revise this compensation. The impugned order was set aside due to lack of authority. [Para 18-19]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – The court allowed the writ petition, reinstating the compensation order of the District Magistrate and invalidating the Principal Secretary’s revision order. The decision underscores the necessity for government authorities to operate within their designated jurisdiction. [Para 21]