Chennai Feb 26 PTI The Madras High Court has lambasted the then secretary of the Selection Committee for medical admissions in 2020 who had committed grave irregularities in admitting candidates for PG courses and directed him to pay Rs 4 lakh each two meritorious candidates who were deprived of seats and ordered police probe on the entire issue The court gave the directions and made the observations while passing further interim orders on a batch of writ petitions from three meritorious candidates on Friday If this Court does not step in to take action in accordance with law the faith that has been reposed on this Court by the public would have a whirlwind downfall Therefore on a consideration of the entire materials placed before this Court in the form of enquiry reports and material documents it clearly transpires that Dr G Selvarajan the then Secretary Selection Committee Directorate of Medical Education has not only been instrumental in depriving the meritorious candidates of their rightful seats under the management quota in the private medical colleges which are under the scanner of the enquiry officer by not following the mandate of the Medical Council of India and the orders of the Honble Supreme Court but even on a holistic consideration of the case this Court is of the view that the nexus does not start or end with him Justice M Dhandapani said The tentacles of illegality are cast far and wide as the perpetrator of the crime could not be an isolated individual in the form of the then Secretary but the said officer would definitely had been aided by other persons in stage-managing the aforesaid act which has deprived the meritorious candidates of their right to seats of their choice under the management quota Therefore a deeper probe into the acts committed by the then Secretary as also the other persons whoever be it requires to be looked into without which a complete probe cannot be said to have been made the judge said The amount of Rs 8 lakh shall be initially paid by the government within four weeks to the two petitioners and later recovered from the retirement benefits of Selvarajan the judge added PTI CORR SA SA

Chandigarh Feb 24 PTI Shiromani Akali Dal SAD leader Bikram Singh Majithia on Thursday appeared before a court in Mohali in connection with a drugs case complying with the directions of the Supreme Court Speaking to reporters outside before entering the court premises Majithia said As per orders of the Honble Supreme Court I have appeared before the Mohali court The apex court had recently directed the Punjab Police to not arrest the former Punjab minister till February 23 in a drugs case so he can undertake electioneering in the state A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli had however directed Majithia to surrender before a trial court after the Punjab assembly polls on February 20 It had also directed the trial court to hear and expeditiously decide Majithias regular bail plea after his surrender in the case The pre-arrest bail plea of Majithia who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances NDPS Act on December 20 last year was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 24 An appeal had been filed in the apex court Majithia who is the SAD MLA and brother-in-law of SAD chief Sukhbir Singh Badal and brother of former Union minister Harsimrat Kaur Badal contested the February 20 polls from the Amritsar East constituency from where Punjab Congress president Navjot Singh Sidhu is seeking re-election PTI SUN VSD AQS AQS

New Delhi Dec 30 PTI The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR for dowry death on the basis of a settlement between a man and his deceased wifes family saying that it is a grave and heinous offence which is actuated by a social evil and thus needs deterrenceJustice Mukta Gupta while dismissing the petition by the man and other accused family members for quashing of the FIR said that the offence of dowry death is an offence against the society and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that cases of serious cannot be closed on the basis of a compromiseIn the present case a woman has committed suicide within five months of the marriage due to the harassment caused by the husband and his family members and the offence punishable under Section 304-B dowry death IPC is not only a grave and heinous offence but an offence against the society actuated by the social evil of demand of dowry thus needs deterrence and therefore cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement arrived at between the accused and the complainant the court said in a recently passed orderA three-judge bench of the Honble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that where serious and grave offences are involved the quashing of FIR cannot be allowed on the basis of the compromise it addedIn the present case the womans family alleged that after the marriage in March 2021 the petitioners started harassing her for dowry Subsequently in August the family received a phone call that their daughter committed suicideDuring the pendency of the investigation the petitioners and the womans family entered into a memorandum of understanding which said that they had arrived at a settlement without any coercion and without any transfer of moneyThe womans family in the settlement said that they had no claim and grievance against the petitioners and would cooperate in the quashing petition while making sincere efforts in getting the petitioners released on bailThe petitioners argued before the high court that in view of the settlement no useful purpose would be served in continuing the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings against themThe prosecution told the court that it has already filed a charge sheet against certain petitioners PTI ADS ZMN

New Delhi Oct 28 PTI The Supreme Court Thursday set aside a Delhi High Court order which allowed Bharti Airtels plea for rectification and refund of Rs 923 crore in excess GST paid by it from July to September 2017 saying that rectification of errors and omissions is permissible only at the initial stages A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari allowed the appeal filed by the Centre against the high courts May 5 2020 judgement which permitted Airtel to rectify Form GSTR-3B GST summary return form for the periodThe apex court said an assessee cannot be permitted to unilaterally carry out rectification of his returns submitted electronically in Form GSTR- 3B which inevitably would affect the obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders because of the cascading effect in their electronic recordsThe law permits rectification of errors and omissions only at the initial stages of Forms GSTR 1 and GSTR 3 but in a specified manner It is a different dispensation provided than the one in the pre-GST period which did not have the provision of auto-populated records and entries the bench saidThe apex court said the challenge to the impugned Circular No 26262017 GST issued by the Commissioner GST dated December 29 2017 is unsustainableThe apex court however rejected the Centres submission regarding jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain the writ petitionAs regards the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court the registered office of respondent No 1 is in Delhi The appellant respondent in the writ petition also has its office in Delhi The relief claimed in the writ petition amongst others was to challenge provisions of the central Act and the circulars issued by the competent authority having its office in Delhi Hence the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court cannot be a matter of any doubt the bench saidReacting to the judgement the telecom operator said the matter pertains to 2017 when GST had just been introduced and the company paid excess cash towards GST to the tune of Rs 923 crore instead of utilising the available Input Tax Credit as there was no automated reconciliation available at that timeIn its order passed today the Honble Supreme Court has maintained that the company has the freedom to avail the amount of INR 923 crores as Input Tax Credit in the subsequent returns which the Company had duly done the company said in a releaseThe bench said this is not a case of denial of availing of Input Tax Credit as such If at all it is only a postponement ofavailing of ITCThe ITC amount remains intact in the electronic credit ledger which can be availed in the subsequent returns including the next financial year It is a different matter that despite the availability of funds in the electronic credit ledger the registered person opts to discharge Outward Tax Liability OTL by paying cash the bench saidThe apex court also trashed the submission of the Centre that state governmentsUnion Territories are necessary parties to the case before the high courtNon-impleadment of respective StatesUTs would not come in the way of the writ petitioner to pursue the cause brought before the High Court by way of the subject writ petition the bench saidThe top court in its 52-page judgement said that the statement of non-operability of Form GSTR 2A purchase- elated dynamic tax return is a flimsy plea taken by the Bharti AirtelIndeed if the stated form was operational the same would have come handy to the writ petitioner for doing self-assessment regarding the eligibility of ITC and availing thereofBut it is a feeble excuse given by the writ petitionerrespondent No 1 to assail the condition specified in impugned Circular regarding the rectification of the return submitted manually in Form GSTR 3B for the relevant period July to September 2017 the bench saidThe apex court said that there is no necessity of reading down paragraph 4 of the impugned Circular as has been done by the High Court vide impugned judgementIn any case the direction issued by the High Court being in the nature of issuing the writ of mandamus to allow the writ petitioner to rectify Form GSTR 3B for the period July to September 2017 in the teeth of express statutory dispensation cannot be sustained the bench saidIn May 2020 the high court had allowed Bharti Airtels plea directing the government to verify and refund the amount claimedWe allow the present petition and permit the Petitioner to rectify Form GSTR 3B for the period to which the error relates ie the relevant period from July 2017 to September 2017We also direct the Respondents that on the filing of the rectified Form GSTR 3B they shall within a period of two weeks verify the claim made therein and give effect to the same once verified it saidThe high court had taken note of the repeated technical glitches in the electronic common portal introduced by the Department during the transition phase from the erstwhile regime to the GST regimeThe high court then noted that Bharti Airtel had submitted its monthly Form GSTR -3B based on estimates for the relevant periodThe Centre had moved the top court in July last year challenging the high court orderPTI PKS RKS RKS

Srinagar Oct 21 PTI The Jammu and Kashmir Fee Fixation and Regulation Committee FFRC on Thursday directed all private schools in the union territory not to charge any money under refundable or deposit heads as it was in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines It also directed the schools not to pressure the parents to pay the tuition fee in advance Unfortunately some school managements despite it having been ruled by Honble Supreme Court and it being an age-old fact that imparting education is not a businesscommercial activity but is charitable work are using this pious work as camouflage to satisfy the beastly instincts of having only this worlds fortunes chairman of FFRC Justice retd Muzaffar Hussain Attar said in a four-page order The order was issued following several complaints from parents that the schools were charging money under refundable or deposit heads Refundable feedeposit is not legally permissible fee so can neither be demanded nor collected the order said Justice Attar said also directed the schools not to pressure the parents to pay the tuition fee in advance for more than one month The tuition fee is a monthly fee out of which as already stated recurring expenses are being made The school managements cannot in law and on any moral justification pressurise the studentsguardians to pay tuition fee in advance for six months or for whole year Such a demand by some of the school managements being not in consonance with settled norms of charging and collecting tuition fee cannot be permitted to be practised by the school managements the order read The demand of some of the school managements to the parents to clear the pending fee dues failing which academic pursuit of the child will be adversely impacted besides being violative of the judgments of the Supreme Court is also unethical and immoral Justice Attar observed Schools are being set up to impart education to children Non-payment of fee cannot and shall not come in way of such a pursuit of the student he added Justice Attar said the school managements however will be within their rights to seek recovery of the unpaid fees in accordance with law PTI MIJ AQS AQS