Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: October 2024 [Citations 144-163]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 144 to 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 163

Nominal Index 

Pareshbhai Ramanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and Batch, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 144

I C Mahida – M.D. of Surat District Co-op Bank Ltd v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 145

X v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 146

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramrul @ MunnaLokane Mina & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 147

X v. Y, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 148

Jyotiradityasinh @ Ganesh Jayrajsinh Jadeja (Garasiya Darbar) & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 149

Rajkumar Sitaldas Keswani v. General Manager & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 150

Alpesh S/O Arvindbhai Barot Through Dharmishta Alpeshbhai Barot v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 151

Kailashbhai Gobarbhai Savaliya v. Election Commission of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 152

Surat Municipal Corporation v. The Secretary, Sudhrai Majdoor Union (Lal Vatva), 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 153

Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa v. State of Gujarat and Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 154

Nirzari Amitbhai Mehta v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Or His Successor, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 155

Surat Trade and Mercantile Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Surat 1 & Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 156

PMW Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 157

Amee Mahasukhlal Parekh as Lr of Late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(1) Or His Successor, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 158

Nathalal Hemabhai Patel (Proprietor Of M/S Patel Govindbhai Somabhai And Co.) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Mehsana, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 159

Ultratech Cement v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 160

Jagat Bahadur Deviram Aitaram Dalami v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 161

M/s Shree Mahalaxmi Cement Products Through Its Director Mr Dipakkumar Ramjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 162

Charu Narendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 163

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To 5 In Vadodara Boat Capsize Incident

Case Title: Pareshbhai Ramanlal Shah v/s State of Gujarat and Batch

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 144

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to five men in connection with a tragic boat capsize in Vadodara's Harni Lake, which led to the deaths of 12 children and two teachers in January 2024. The accused, including partners and staff from Kotia Projects and its subcontractor Dolphin Entertainment, were involved in running the boating activity. The court noted that the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) had recommended safety measures but failed to ensure they were followed, and VMC officers were not investigated for potential negligence. Observing that a trial with 433 witnesses may take time, the court ruled it reasonable to release the five on bail while clarifying that its preliminary observations should not influence the final trial outcome.

Merely Being Caretaker Of Society Doesn't Attract Vicarious Liability For Non-Deposit Of Provident Fund: Gujarat HC Quashes FIR

Case Title: I C Mahida – M.D. of Surat District Co-op Bank Ltd v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 145

The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR against three men accused of not depositing employee provident funds for a society. Justice Hasmukh D Suthar ruled that merely being on the society's Custodian Committee doesn't make them automatically liable under the law. For them to be responsible, the complainant would need to prove they managed the society's daily operations, which was not shown. The court found that the three men were caretakers, not full-time employees, and had no malicious intent.

Prima Facie Appears To Be 'Consensual' : Gujarat High Court Grants Bail In Case Under Section 377 IPC

Case Title: X vs State of Gujarat

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 146

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a 22-year-old man accused under IPC Section 377 in a case filed by a 64-year-old man, noting the relationship seemed consensual. Referring to the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations, Justice Hasmukh D Suthar observed no evidence of extortion or harm as alleged under other sections. With the investigation being complete and the man having no criminal history, the court allowed bail. The plea argued the younger man had loaned the complainant money, and, after requesting repayment, faced false accusations. The Court observed that there was no sufficient evidence to show the alleged extortion and the relationship seemed consensual. The court then directed that its observations are preliminary and should not impact the trial.

Gujarat HC Rejects Insurer's Claim That 33-Year-Old Accident Was Murder, Says Investigating Officer's Report To Magistrate Not 'Gospel Truth'

Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through v/s Ramrul @ MunnaLokane Mina & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 147

The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company challenging compensation awarded to the families of two men killed in a 1991 road accident. The company claimed it was a murder, not an accident, based on a report suggesting the men were poisoned. However, Justice J.C. Doshi noted that the company provided no evidence beyond the report and did not examine witnesses to support the murder claim. The court emphasized that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act applies to incidents "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" and found no proof the deaths were intentional. As a result, the insurance company's appeal was rejected, and the compensation stands.

Father-In-Law Contributing To Husband's Growth To Help Save Daughter's Marriage Not Cruelty Sans Contrary Evidence: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: X v/s Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 148

The Gujarat High Court rejected a man's divorce plea based on alleged cruelty by his wife, ruling that there was no evidence of interference by her father that could be considered "cruelty." The man had claimed that his in-laws pressured him to return to Surat and interfered in family matters, causing marital strain. However, the court noted that the father-in-law's support was for the family's welfare and didn't amount to interference. Allegations from both sides, including claims of gambling and harassment, were not severe enough to justify divorce. Observing that the marriage's breakdown didn't automatically constitute cruelty, the court upheld the lower court's decision, dismissing the husband's appeal.

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To BJP MLA's Son Booked Under Atrocities Act

Case Title: Jyotiradityasinh @ Ganesh Jayrajsinh Jadeja (Garasiya Darbar) & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 149

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to BJP MLA Geetaba Jadeja's son, Ganesh Jadeja, who had been in custody since June 2024 for charges under the Atrocities Act, Arms Act, and IPC, including abduction and assault of an SC community member. Previously denied bail by the Sessions Court, Ganesh's appeal was supported by a certificate showing the injuries to the complainant were minor. Justice MR Mengdey noted that Ganesh was unlikely to flee, referencing Supreme Court guidelines on bail. The court imposed conditions, including restricting the appellants from entering the district where the FIR was filed, and required them to declare their immovable assets. The trial court may issue a warrant if these conditions are violated.

Industrial Tribunal's Findings On Employee's Alleged Misconduct Without Taking On Record Inquiry Report Not Sustainable: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Rajkumar Sitaldas Keswani v/s General Manager & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 150

The Gujarat High Court observed that the Industrial Tribunal cannot assess the fairness of disciplinary action against an employee if the inquiry officer's report is missing. The case involved an employee of Western Railways who appealed the order of the single bench that upheld the disciplinary action in the absence of inquiry report. The Division Bench, led by Justices A.S. Supehia and Gita Gopi, decided the case should be sent back to the Tribunal to review the inquiry officer's findings, asking for a decision within four months since the issue dates back to 2005.

Material Not Sufficient To Prove That Activities Harm 'Public Order': Gujarat High Court Sets Free Man Detained For Being A "Bootlegger"

Case Title: Alpesh S/O Arvindbhai Barot Through Dharmishta Alpeshbhai Barot v/s State of Gujarat & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 151

The Gujarat High Court overturned a detention order issued by Ahmedabad's Police Commissioner against Bhanabhai Babubhai Solanki, who was accused of bootlegging under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The court found insufficient evidence to prove that Solanki's actions threatened public order. Justices Ilesh J. Vora and S.V. Pinto ruled that a prohibition case alone did not justify preventive detention, and they ordered Solanki's immediate release, noting that the police had not adequately demonstrated that his alleged activities posed a public order risk.

Gujarat HC Rejects PIL To Hold Bypolls For Vacant Visavadar Constituency Seat After MLA Bhupendrabhai Bhayani's Resignation

Case Title: Kailashbhai Gobarbhai Savaliya v/s Election Commission of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 152

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a public interest petition seeking a directive for the Election Commission to announce bye-elections for the Visavadar Assembly seat, left vacant after MLA Bhupendrabhai Bhayani's resignation in December 2023. The court, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, noted that a pending election petition by a losing candidate contested the original election result, meaning bye-elections couldn't proceed until this issue was resolved. The court also clarified that the Election Commission and State Government have no control over election petition timelines and dismissed the plea, stating no directive could be issued under the current circumstances.

Gujarat High Court Quashes Overtime Wage Award To Surat Fire Brigade Employees; Evidence Found Insufficient

Case Title: Surat Municipal Corporation v/s The Secretary, Sudhrai Majdoor Union (Lal Vatva)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 153

The Gujarat High Court overturned an Industrial Tribunal decision that ordered the Surat Municipal Corporation to pay overtime to fire department employees for 12-hour shifts worked from 2001 to 2017. The court, led by Justices A.S. Supehia and Gita Gopi, found no clear evidence that employees consistently worked beyond the 12-hour shifts, which were set with mutual agreement and included benefits like rent-free housing and allowances. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the court also held that the Minimum Wages Act did not apply, as the employees earned above minimum wage. Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the order was dismissed.

Why Publicize Petition? Gujarat High Court Asks As Journalist Mahesh Langa Withdraws Challenge To Remand In GST "Fraud" Case

Case Title: Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa v State of Gujarat and Anr.

Citations:  2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 154

Journalist Mahesh Langa, a Senior Assistant Editor at The Hindu, withdrew his petition from the Gujarat High Court challenging a 10-day police remand in a GST fraud case. Justice Sandeep Bhatt allowed the withdrawal but questioned why the case had received so much publicity. The court expressed concern over the media attention, emphasizing that judicial matters should proceed without external influence or “hue and cry.” Langa had initially appealed the October 9 magistrate's order for police custody, facing charges of cheating, forgery, and using forged documents.

S. 119(2)(b) Income Tax Act | Gujarat HC Directs Commissioner To Avoid Pedantic Approach, Condone One Year Delay In Filing Return

Case Title: Nirzari Amitbhai Mehta v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Or His Successor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 155

The Gujarat High Court recently granted a woman's request to condone a delay of over a year in filing her income tax return, criticizing the tax authority's overly technical approach in denying her application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act which allows the CBDT to permit tax relief despite missed deadlines in cases of genuine hardship. The woman argued that the delay was unintentional and she should not lose her rightful refund. Referring to similar judgments, the court emphasized that authorities should prioritize fairness over strict technicalities. It ordered the Income Tax authority to reconsider her case within 12 weeks.

Assessee Who Forgot To Claim 'Long Term Capital Loss' In Income Tax Return Can Seek Revision U/S 264: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Surat Trade and Mercantile Limited v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Surat 1 & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 156

The Gujarat High Court recently permitted a taxpayer, who missed claiming a 'Long Term Capital Loss' in their tax return, to file a revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Mauna M. Bhatt emphasized that the Income Tax Commissioner must evaluate such revision requests based on their merits. The taxpayer had sought revision due to an oversight in filing the return, but the Principal Commissioner initially rejected it, stating the claim could not be reconsidered post-assessment. The High Court directed the Commissioner to reassess the claim within 12 weeks, allowing the taxpayer to provide necessary documents.

Credit Cannot Be Blocked In Electronic Credit Ledger If Sufficient Balance Not Available: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: PMW Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 157

The Gujarat High Court ruled that if there is no sufficient balance in an electronic credit ledger, it cannot be blocked. Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Niral R. Mehta addressed a case where an assessee's Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹2.44 crore was blocked, resulting in a negative balance. The court noted that blocking ITC under Rule 86A of the GST Rules requires available credit. Referring to a prior case, Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, the bench stated that cross-utilization of credits between CGST and SGST isn't allowed. The bench allowed the petition and directed the department to withdraw the negative block of the Electronic Credit Ledger.

S. 68 Of Income Tax Act Not Attracted When There Is No Unexplained Amount In Bank Statement: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Amee Mahasukhlal Parekh as Lr of Late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(1) Or His Successor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 158

The Gujarat High Court ruled that there was no income escapement by the assessee since there was no unexplained amount in the bank records. Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Mauna M. Bhatt noted that the ₹3.25 crore in question, related to a loan given and repaid in 2015, had been fully accounted for and did not meet the criteria for unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was unjustified and allowed the petition, dismissing the claim of income escapement.

Notice Issued U/S 148A(B) Of Income Tax Act Against Dissolved Firm Is Not Valid: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Nathalal Hemabhai Patel (Proprietor Of M/S Patel Govindbhai Somabhai And Co.) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Mehsana

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 159

The Gujarat High Court ruled that a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act to a dissolved partnership firm is invalid. In this case, the Assessing Officer issued a notice and order to the firm, even though it had already been dissolved. The court agreed with the firm's argument that proceedings couldn't be initiated against a dissolved entity, especially after the firm informed the department about its dissolution. As a result, the court quashed the notice and order.

Mentioning Proposed Penalty In Declaration Under SVLDR Scheme Not Incorrect: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Ultratech Cement v. Union of India

Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj)160

The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Sabka Vishwas Scheme (SVLDRS) can be applied to any show cause notice (SCN) related to penalties or late fees, even if it is still under review or appeal. In this case, Ultratech Cement received an SCN proposing a penalty of over Rs. 20 crore for wrongfully taking CENVAT credit. They filed a declaration under the SVLDRS, but the Deputy Commissioner rejected it, claiming the penalty amount was not finalized. The High Court disagreed, stating that the SVLDRS applies to any SCN, even if the penalty has not been confirmed yet.

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Nepali Citizen Booked For Forging Indian Passport By Using ID Of Another

Case Title: Jagat Bahadur Deviram Aitaram Dalami v/s State of Gujarat

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 161

The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a man, allegedly a Nepali citizen, who was accused of forging an Indian passport using fake documents. The court emphasized that bail is the rule, and jail should be the exception, noting that prolonged pre-trial detention could violate personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The man had been in jail since June, and the investigation was complete with a charge sheet filed. The court considered his clean record, the fact that nothing further needed to be recovered and that he was earning his livelihood in India. The court granted him bail with conditions, including a Rs 25,000 bond, a local surety, surrendering his passport, and providing personal details to the court and police.

GST Rate On Bricks With Less Than 90% Fly Ash Content To Be Charged At 5% Instead Of 18%: Gujarat High Court Clarifies

Case Title: M/s Shree Mahalaxmi Cement Products Through Its Director Mr Dipakkumar Ramjibhai Patel vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 162

The Gujarat High Court ruled on September 25 that fly ash bricks and blocks with less than 90% fly ash content should be taxed at 5% GST, not 18%, as previously stated by the Advance Ruling Authority. The court clarified that the 90% fly ash content rule applies only to fly ash aggregates, not bricks or blocks.

Fly ash bricks, which are eco-friendly and cost-effective, were initially taxed at 12%, but in 2017, the rate was reduced to 5%. The petitioner, who manufactures fly ash bricks, challenged the ruling that applied an 18% GST to their bricks. The court referred to a 2022 clarification stating that the 90% fly ash content requirement for lower tax rates only applies to aggregates, not bricks or blocks.

The court quashed the previous orders and confirmed that the petitioner's products are subject to the 5% GST rate.

Gujarat High Court Quashes Chargesheet Against Govt Official For Renewing Passport Without NOC, Deems It "Administrative Lapse"

Case Title: Charu Narendrabhai Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 163

The Gujarat High Court quashed a charge sheet against Charu Bhatt, a former Director of Accounts and Treasury, who was accused of renewing her passport in 2013 without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government. The court found that this act did not constitute "misconduct" under the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, as it was a minor administrative lapse, not a serious violation.

The court also noted the 8-year delay in issuing the charge sheet, which suggested a personal vendetta, and referenced a previous Supreme Court case to support its decision. Since the renewal did not reflect a lack of integrity or duty, the charge sheet was deemed invalid. The court awarded Rs. 10,000 as costs and granted the State the option to recover the amount from the responsible officer.