HC Orders Release of Vehicle in Criminal Case

 Hyderabad: Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered the release of a vehicle alleged to have been involved in the kidnapping of a tribal person. The judge was allowing a criminal petition filed by Megavath Ramesh. It was alleged that the vehicle was used in the kidnapping complainant and for committing the offences of kidnapping, rioting, wrongful confinement, and other offences under the IPC. The petitioner stated that the vehicle was seized under the cover of the panchanama, produced before the court and directed to be kept in police custody. It was the case of the petitioner that as per the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, he was the brother of the principal accused and he had earlier filed an application seeking release of the vehicle, but the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/ STs Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases-cum-ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda had dismissed the same. The High Court, allowing the criminal petition, directed the release of the vehicle subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for Rs 2 lakh. Justice Bhaskar Reddy made clear that the vehicle shall not be alienated or transferred in any manner and maintained in good and roadworthy condition.

HC clears GST reimbursement

Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the railways to reconsider reimbursement of GST along with service tax under the GST neutralisation scheme. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by RCM Cargo Mover and Co, seeking reimbursement of about Rs 65 lakh paid towards GST. An order rejecting the request was challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner said he supplies transport vehicles to the railways including the South Central Railway and the service is taxable at 18 per cent of the gross value of the contract (service). However, prior to July 1, 2017, most of the services rendered to Indian Railways were exempted from payment of service tax and hence the petitioner was not liable to pay any service tax prior to the introduction of GST regime that came into force on July 1, 2017. or any time prior to that. Having regard to the existing tax regime, the service tax which did not indicate the quantum of tax, with a view to rationalising the tendering process and to bring about uniform condition on service tax in tenders, South Central Railway through its financial adviser and chief accounts officer issued a circular on March 25, 2015. Since the contracts were entered into before 2017, they were entitled to reimbursement/recovery of GST. The petitioner in September 2020 requested the railways to make the payments in terms of its directives, which was refused. It was specifically contended that when the executive specifically stated that the contractor needed to be reimbursed the GST element as that did not form part of the estimates, the South Central Railway could not have taken a different view, and he was bound to follow the orders of his superiors and particularly the orders of the Railway Board. Allowing the writ petitions, Justice Nanda pointed out to the circulars which were not considered by the South Central Railway. The court directed reconsideration in terms of the relevant circulars and to pass appropriate orders by adhering to the principles of natural justice by providing due notice and opportunity to the petitioner and communicate the decision to the petitioner.