Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: June 24 - June 30, 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

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.

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 quashed 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 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.