The State of Gujarat issued summons dated 31.10.2018 to the respondents under Section 145 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the service tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in connection with an inquiry against M/s. Iyer Enterprise Mundra Kutch for alleged evasion of Goods and Service Tax Liability. The respondents failed to appear for interrogation after receiving the summons, apprehending arrest.

The respondents filed two writ applications before the High Court, seeking protection against arrest in exercise of the power conferred by Section 69(1) of the GST Act, 2017. The High Court directed them to represent their case before the concerned authority, completing the inquiry within 8 weeks.

The State of Gujarat appealed the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the respondents can invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail at the stage of summons issued under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017?

Ratio:

The power to arrest a person under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is statutory and can be exercised based on reasons to believe that the person committed a cognizable and non-bailable offense specified in Section 132(1) of the Act. The Court emphasized that statutory powers of arrest should be exercised on objective facts of committing the specified offense, as held in the case of Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court clarified that at the stage of summons, the respondents cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. The Court granted one more opportunity to the respondents to appear before the authorities for recording their statements. If the respondents fail to appear, the authority can proceed further in accordance with the law.

National Award for Teachers (NAT) Scheme – Revised selection procedure – Petitioners sought revision of selection procedure and accommodation of every candidate – Respondent opposed revision, stating it was based on expert opinion and relevant criteria – Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to make a detailed representation to the respondent for revision of the selection procedure in the future – If representation contains aspects for consideration, respondent may revise and implement accordingly.

Contempt jurisdiction - Filing of a false affidavit - Basis for initiation of action - Persons punished. [Para 49]

Waiver of right to challenge record of rights - Indirect relief sought through alternative means - Not maintainable - No challenge made to record of rights. [Para 50]

Reliance on notings in government file without communication of any order - Inter-departmental communications in process of consideration - Not a basis to claim right - Mere notings in file do not amount to an order - Need for order to be expressed in the name of the Governor and communicated - No formal order modifying decision made - Notings in file can be reviewed/reversed/overruled - No relief based solely on official notings. [Para 51]

Delay in availing appropriate remedy - Constructive res judicata - Concealment of material facts - Mis-statement of facts - Party non-suited. [Para 54]

No order passed by government and conveyed for allotment of land - No entitlement to relief based on official notings. [Para 54]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Appointment of Director of Enforcement - Extension of tenure - Constitutional validity of Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 and Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 - Writ petitions challenging the Acts - Whether amendments violative of Article 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution - Power of Government to appoint Director of Enforcement - Whether Government has power to extend tenure beyond two years - Scope of Section 25 of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - Interpretation of Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 - Principle of separation of powers and judicial review - Effect of subsequent legislative enactment on mandamus issued by the Court - Whether a writ of mandamus can be nullified by legislative act - Retrospective amendment and its reasonableness - Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution - Smooth transition and public interest - Validity of impugned orders granting extensions - Held, the challenge to the Acts and rules is rejected and writ petitions are dismissed - The impugned orders are held to be illegal - Respondent permitted to hold office till 31st July 2023.(Para 1-121)

Eviction suit - Interpretation of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Whether the provision creates a complete prohibition on filing a suit for eviction within five years of the tenancy or only affects the consideration of the suit and passing of a decree therein - Objective of Section 14(3) is to protect the tenant from eviction for a specified period - Literal interpretation leading to absurdity - Purposive interpretation required - Passage of time beyond the prescribed period washes away the initial impediment against the suit - Filing of a fresh suit after the prescribed period would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation - Applicability of B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan judgment - Extraordinary delay in the present case - Quietus should be put to the prolonged dispute - Decree of eviction affirmed - Respondent ordered to hand over vacant possession of the premises - Appeal allowed. (Para 15-23)

The respondent, Ravinder Singh, was a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination (Written), 2022. He sought re-evaluation of his answer script for question No.9 of Law Paper-I. His request for re-evaluation was rejected by a Committee of six Hon’ble Judges of the High Court. Aggrieved by the rejection, he filed WP(C) No. 434/2023 in the High Court of Delhi seeking quashment of the rejection letter dated 05.01.2023 and direction to re-evaluate the said question.

Issue:

Whether the rejection of the respondent’s request for re-evaluation of his answer script for question No.9 of Law Paper-I was valid, considering the prohibition on re-evaluation under Clause XII, Rule 7C of the Appendix to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970?

Ratio:

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules and considered the specific provision under Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which justified the award of zero marks to the respondent for question No.9 of Law Paper-I. The Court also referred to the decision in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 357], which clarified that re-evaluation cannot be ordered when a statutory provision prohibits it. In cases where re-evaluation is not expressly prohibited, it can only be permitted in rare and exceptional instances where a material error has been committed.

Decision:

The Court held that the rejection of the respondent’s request for re-evaluation was valid in the light of the specific prohibition on re-evaluation under Clause XII, Rule 7C of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules and the absence of any ‘material error’ in the evaluation. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 434/2023 was set aside, and the Writ Petition was dismissed. The Civil Appeal was allowed in favor of the petitioner (Registrar General, High Court of Delhi).

Contempt Petition - Reinstatement of petitioners and similarly situated members of Bharatpur Bar Association - Undertaking given by respondents' counsel - No obstruction on petitioners or similarly situated members acting as legal defense counsel - Coercive action warned for future incidents - Disposal of petitions - No impediment on the work of legal defense counsel.

Anticipatory Bail – Grant of – Seriousness of offence and need for custodial interrogation – Balance between individual rights and interests of justice – Land forgery and fraud – Prima facie evidence of fraudulent transactions – Suspicion regarding authenticity of documents – Elderly and vulnerable victims – Necessity of thorough investigation – Cancellation of erroneous bail order – Expansion of inquiry and constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Direction for custodial interrogation – Cooperation from authorities – Conclusion of investigation within specified timeframe – Monitoring by Commissioner of Police. (Paragraphs 16-36)

Land Scams – Fraudulent practices in land acquisition and transactions – Creation of fake land titles, forged documents, and manipulation of records – Exploitation of vulnerable individuals and communities – Disruption of development projects and erosion of public trust – Need to thwart organized crime and ensure justice. (Paragraph 25)

Prima Facie Evidence – Evaluation of material facts – Non-recovery of original documents – Dubious nature of transactions – Discrepancies in execution and registration processes – Suspicion of collusion and conspiracy – Importance of fair and unobstructed investigation. (Paragraphs 20-22, 24)

Cooperation of Civil Court – Non-interference with ongoing investigation – Avoidance of orders hampering investigation – Prima facie criminality not barred by civil proceedings – Prompt and effective resolution of the matter. (Paragraphs 28-29)

Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Constitution and scope – Headed by senior officer – Authority to subject suspects to custodial interrogation – Power to seek modifications of anticipatory bail orders – Monitoring by Commissioner of Police – Timely conclusion of investigation. (Paragraphs 31-35) Bail Order Set Aside – Appeal Allowed.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Enhancement – Assessment of compensation by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal – Appeal before the High Court – Appeal before the Supreme Court – Assessment of quantum of compensation – Consideration of evidence – Error in assessing income and disability – Revision of compensation awarded – Additional compensation for pain and suffering – Modification of compensation for loss of future income, loss of marriage prospects, and loss of earnings during laid-up period – Recalculation of compensation amount – Interest on the awarded amount – Directions for depositing the awarded amount. (Para No. 11-13)