Allahabad High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June 2024 [Citations 1-415]

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS UP Victim Compensation Scheme 2014 | Eligibility/ Quantum Of Compensation For Rape Victims To Be Decided By DLSA, Not Court: Allahabad HC Case Title: Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. The bench comprising of Justice Alok Mathur held, “Considering the aforesaid judgments and also nature of the work involved in the present case where the workmen were working on the post of Mali and were involved in the task of plantation in the forest and distribution of forest produce, the said exercise was definitely a systematic activity and they have been working for four years continuously, it cannot be said that they were daily or casual employees engaged only intermittently.” RBI Mute Spectator, Allowing Banks To Arbitrarily Charge Very High Rate Of Interest Despite Guidelines: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Manmeet Singh vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw 38 Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 38 The Allahabad High Court has expressed surprise on how despite guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, banks are being allowed to charge higher rates of interest from their customers. Power Corporation Limited and others Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw 63 While dealing with a case where oral evidence was not led by an employer to prove charges against the, the Allahabad High Court remarked that “the seriousness or enormity of the charge does not license the employer to jump to conclusions.” Directing the reinstatement of the employee, Justice J.J. Munir observed, “The more serious the charge, the more serious the consequence for the employee that are likely to ensue, in the event of its proof, and, the more strict, therefore, would be the requirement of procedural fairness in the departmental inquiry, where, the inquiry must proceed according to salutary and settled principles of holding a fair inquiry, which requires the Establishment to discharge their burden in the first instance, by leading evidence, with due opportunity to the delinquent.” Provision For Urgent Relief Not A Tool To Circumvent Pre-Institution Mediation U/S 12A Commercial Courts Act: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Pankaj Rastogi v. Mohd. Section 13 of the Act provides that “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this sub-section where goods purchased are resold or goods manufactured or processed by using or utilizing such where goods are sold, at the price which is lower than purchase price of such goods in case of resale; or cost price in case of manufacture, the amount of input tax credit shall be claimed and be allowed to the extent of tax payable on the sale value of goods or manufactured goods.” S107 CGST | Appellate Authority Does Not Have Power To Remand Case Back To Adjudication Authority: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw 78 The Allahabad High Court has held that the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 does not have the power to remand the case back to the adjudication authority. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that “mere technical error committed by the petitioner cannot result in imposition of such harsh penalty upon the petitioner.” Rule 108 CGST Rules | Self-Certified Copy Of Order Under Challenge Not Required For Appeals Filed Electronically: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another 2024 LiveLaw 97 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw 97 The Allahabad High Court has held that requirement of self-certified copy of order is not applicable to the appeals filed electronically under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.