Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: July 8 - July 14, 2024

Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and Ors. v. Hon'ble Speaker and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 28

Tahseen Gul Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 29

M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 30

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Versus UOI 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 31

J.B.J. Perfumes Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another 2024 Livelaw (HP) 32

Sita Ram Sharma Vs State of HP 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 33

Kamla Devi vs Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority and another 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 34

Surjan Singh vs. Jawahar Lal 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 35

Sandeep Sharma V/s Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 36

Judgments/Orders:

Constitutional Courts Cannot Impose Timeline On Speaker To Accept Or Decline Resignations Of MLAs: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and Ors. v. Hon'ble Speaker and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 28

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that courts cannot impose a specific timeframe on the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to decide on the resignations submitted by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).

“…no timeframe can be fixed by the Constitutional Court for the Speaker to decide the issue of resignation tendered by members of the Legislative Assembly/Vidhan Sabha, if any, brought before him”, the court held.

[S. 153(B) IPC] Praying For Departed Militant Does Not Amount To Instigating Community To Protest: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Tahseen Gul Vs State of Himachal Pradesh.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 29

The Himachal Pradesh High Court determined that offering prayers for a deceased militant does not amount to instigating members of the community to protest, thereby not attracting penal provisions under Section 153(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Quashing an FIR against a student for offences under Sections 153(B) of Indian Penal Code a bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed,

“Had petitioner after death of militant named hereinabove instigated people to lodge protest against the Administration and other Police authorities, or had he made appeal to others to join the movement, he could be said to have been committed offence under Section 153(B) of IPC…. he simply made a prayer for departed soul with further comment that he misses Shakoor Bhai”.

Refusal To Entertain Refund Application Of Unutilized ITC; Himachal Pradesh High Court Imposes 10K Cost On Deputy CGST Commissioner

Case Title: M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 30

The Himachal Pradesh High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Deputy CGST Commissioner for refusing to entertain the application of the assessee or petitioner for a refund of unutilized input tax credit.

The bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya has observed that the Deputy CGST Commissioner could not have refused to entertain the application of the petitioner for refund of unutilized input tax credit on the ground that the petitioner was not a “registered” person at the relevant point in time. The Deputy CGST Commissioner should also have taken note of Rule 41 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, which deals with instances of transfer of credit on amalgamation of companies.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Order Rejecting Ultra Tech's Claim For Grant Of Budgetary Support Scheme

Case Title: Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 31

The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the order rejecting Ultra Tech's claim for the grant of budgetary support.

The bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya has observed that the budgetary support scheme is governed by principles of natural justice, and one such principle is the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing to the party who would suffer civil consequences.

It held that principles of natural justice have to be read into the law considering the nature of the duty to be performed by the respondent and that the scheme does not bar the application of principles of natural justice.

Assessment Re-Opened By Dept. Based On 'Change Of Opinion'; Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Reassessment

Case Title: J.B.J. Perfumes Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another

Citation: 2024 Livelaw (HP) 32

The Himachal High Court the reassessment order on the grounds that the assessment was re-opened by the department based on 'change of opinion'.

The bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja has observed that as per the record the objections were raised only by the Audit Party and, therefore, reasons have been recorded on borrowed satisfaction of the Audit Party and not that of the respondent-department.

Live-Streaming Of Police Actions Would Not Constitute Obstruction In Discharge Of Public Function: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sita Ram Sharma Vs State of HP

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 33

Underscoring that live-streaming police actions cannot be considered an obstruction of duty the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that

“Mere protest or use of intemperate language, without any overt act, would not amount to the criminal offence of obstructing an official in the discharge of public functions.”

Callous Attitude Of Arbitrator: Himachal Pradesh High Court Criticizes Arbitrator For Not Completing Arbitral Proceedings Within Prescribed Time

Case Title: Kamla Devi vs Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 34

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that the onus is upon the arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to them within the time schedule prescribed in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

"Terrifying, Perverse Order": Himachal Pradesh HC Raps Trial Judge For Ordering Coercive Action Against Judgement Debtor Without Prior Notice

Case Title: Surjan Singh vs. Jawahar Lal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 35

The Himachal Pradesh High Court issued a stern rebuke to a Senior Civil Judge for issuing an execution order without following mandatory legal procedures and directing coercive measures against the judgment debtor without issuing a prior notice.

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, addressing the petitioner's grievance and expressing his disapproval of the order, stated,

“It is not only shocking but appalling to note the manner in which learned Senior Civil Judge, has dealt with execution petition by not even caring and bothering to issue notice to the judgment debtor and straightway directed the decree holder to take coercive steps.”

'Continuous' 7-Yrs Practice As Advocate Not Required For District Judge Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sandeep Sharma V/s Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 36

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that continuous practice as an advocate for seven years is not required for appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge under Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution.

Delivering the judgment, the court said:

“Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India does not require continuous practice for seven years as an Advocate; it merely stipulates that the candidate must have seven years of practice and be an Advocate on the date of the application and appointment.”