Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 NOMINAL INDEX Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 Mr G Venkateshan v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319 Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320 Maharaja v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 321 S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
NOMINAL INDEX
Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
Mr G Venkateshan v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
Maharaja v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
Viterra India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
Siva Vijayan v Home Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
Dharani v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
Preetha v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals Versus The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
Tvl.Deepa Traders Versus The Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
REPORT
Case Title: Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
While pointing out that the payment by FPS was not made towards the ESOPs as the Assessee continues to hold the ESOP (Employee Stock Option Purchase) even after the receipt of the compensation, the Madras High Court held the receipt in hands of Assessee qualifies as perquisite and taxable under the head 'Salaries'.
Hence, the High Court refuses to allow 'Nil' certificate of tax deduction u/s 192 in reference to such compensation, which is to be treated as perquisite in lieu of 'salary'.
Further, Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act provides for the valuation of perquisites for tax purposes, which is equal to the cost which has been incurred by the organization/ employer for/ on behalf of the employee.
Case Title: Mr G Venkateshan v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court has emphasised that the term “offences against women” which is excluded from plea bargaining would mean only gender-centric or gender-neutral offences and not non-gender offences committed against women.
Justice G Jayachandran also laid down suggestions which the trial courts could look into while dealing with applications for plea bargaining.
The court suggested that the trial courts could inform the accused about his right to invoke plea bargaining soon after the framing charges, thus allowing the accused to exercise his right before the expiry of 30 days from the date of framing charges as prescribed under Section 290 of BNSS.
Nullity Of Marriage Doesn't Bar Wife From Claiming Maintenance: Madras High Court
Case Title: Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
While refusing to interfere with an order granting maintenance to the wife, the Madras High Court said that it was a settled position that even if a marriage was declared null by a competent court, it would not bar the wife from claiming maintenance.
Justice G Ilangovan was hearing a plea by a husband to recall an earlier order of the High Court fixing maintenance of Rs5000/- to his wife. The court observed that if the husband had any grievance over the order, he should have taken recourse through proper proceedings. The court, thus denied to interfere with the order stating that the petition filed without following the procedure was not maintainable.
Case Title: Maharaja v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
The Madras High Court recently observed that the popular gay dating app, Grindr was being used for illegal activities. The court was hearing a bail petition of a man who was accused of sexually abusing and robbing another man through the app. The court thus suggested the Investigating officer to report to the Ministry of Electronic & Information Technology so that it could take appropriate action including blocking the app as per with law.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that the app was illegal not because it dealt with homosexual persons, but it served only a prurient purpose and the sexual interest of the parties.
Commercial Tax Officer Not Obligated To Physically Verify E-Way Bills: Madras High Court
Case Title: S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court has quashed the suspension order of a commercial tax officer who issued refunds to fake exporters without verification.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has observed that, as a quasi-judicial authority, if the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements that are provided under the relevant Act and the circular, that by itself is sufficient compliance before passing the order of refund of the tax. If, for any reason, it ultimately turns out to be a fake export by a fraudster, the order passed by the petitioner by itself cannot result in the suspension of the petitioner. When the petitioner was exercising his quasi-judicial function, unless there was strong prima facie material against the petitioner involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct, etc., suspension must be the last resort.
No IGST Is Payable On Ocean Freight Under Reverse Charge Mechanism; Madras High Court Directs Refund
Case Title: Viterra India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court has directed the department to refund the GST paid by the assessee on the ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals Private Limited, in which it was held that no IGST is payable on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism for cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) imports.
Case Title: Siva Vijayan v Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court has allowed Hindu Munnani to conduct demonstrations in the state demanding the Central Government to take action against the genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh.
Allowing a petition filed by the organization, Justice G Jayachandran said that when demonstrations could be held in the state to show solidarity with the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the same could be done for the Hindus in Bangladesh. The court also emphasized that the people had a democratic right to hold peaceful demonstrations.
Case Title: Dharani v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
In an unusual order, the Madras High Court has invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction in a habeas corpus case, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against a woman under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan were hearing an HCP filed by a woman for producing her 5-and-a-half-year-old daughter. The woman had alleged that her elder sister and mother were refusing to hand over the daughter's custody to her.
After granting custody to the woman, the court went a step further and examined the POCSO proceedings initiated against her on the complaint of the sister and the mother. Noting that a scheming attempt had been made by the sister and mother to get custody of the minor child, the court observed that there was not an iota of legally permissible evidence against the woman to proceed under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Preetha v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madrasa High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a woman for allegedly killing her husband who tried to sexually assault their 21-year-old daughter in a drunken state.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that on perusing the materials, it was clear that the act was committed under private defence and it was obvious that the woman had committed the alleged offence to save the honour of her daughter.
The court referred to the statement of the daughter along with the photographs and the post-mortem report to conclude that the prosecution under Section 302 of the IPC was erroneous. The court observed that the act was a clear case of private defence which attracted Section 97 of the IPC.
Case Title: Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court recently held that while minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions, the appointment in these institutions if aided by the government, could not be limited to a particular religious denomination.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that when the institution was receiving funds from the state exchequer, the principles of secularism demanded that the appointment process be open to all.
The court observed that the right of the institutions to receive grant from the government is coupled with the obligation to appoint competent teachers and this obligation could be discharged only if there is a wide choice of candidates. The court thus held that the appointment of candidates from the diocese list would not be good for the administration.
Case Title: M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals Versus The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court has quashed the order, not condoning the delay of 1 day, on the ground that the extended time limit for availing input tax credit (ITC) is retrospectively applicable.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the GST Council, in its 53rd meeting, recommended extending the deadline for filing GSTR-3B returns for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, and the said extension applies retrospectively from July 1, 2017.
The court, while allowing the petition, held that the department refused to condone the delay and also proposed to reverse the ITC under Section 73(1) of the GST Act, which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and is hence liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Tvl.Deepa Traders Versus The Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court has condoned the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal on the grounds that the notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no hard copy was served on the assessee.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the delay was not wilful but due to bona fide reasons, and a reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally criticized the Tamil Nadu government for invoking the Preventive Detention Laws at the drop of a hat when there was only “mere apprehension” of disturbing public order.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam advised the State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah to instruct the department to desist from using the laws. The court also informed the prosecutor that it was thinking of granting interim bail in cases where preventive detention is invoked without a prima facie threat to the public order.