Telangana HC Chides TSIIC, Directs It to Appoint the Eligible Tribal Woman

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and others to employ Porika Sucharitha as manager in a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) women. According to the petitioner, the person who was originally selected for the post did not turn up; she being next in the waitlist was entitled to be appointed. Instead, other candidates were appointed for the post of manager-electrical. The petitioner contended that both the Central and the state governments provide special rule of reservation in favour of SCs and STs as a means to uplift the downtrodden. As the subject post was reserved for ST (women), not filling up the post with a woman was illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It was the case of the corporation that there is no wait list and hence, the question of appointing the petitioner did not arise. On a detailed consideration of the facts of the case, Justice Bheemapaka found that certain other persons in the open category were absorbed from the wait list. Referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard, the judge pointed out that the apex court, while dealing with similar circumstances, had categorically held that in the absence of an offer of appointment to the successful candidate, claim of the next meritorious candidate shall be considered. Referring to Note 5, the judge noted that in the view of the settled legal position, the plea that the practice of keeping a waiting list has been done away may not be sustainable. Therefore, the contentions of the respondents to the contrary would become untenable too, after failure on their part to place a copy of the offer of appointment issued to another candidate. The court faulted the authorities and observed that the reason invented by the authorities was with a view to deprive the petitioner of her legitimate claim for appointment. In the absence of production of the said document, this court is on full agreement with the contentions canvassed by the counsel for petitioner and accordingly directed that the tribal candidate be given appointment as sought.

HC sets aside show cause notice issued by IT dept

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside showcause notices under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act. The panel was dealing with matters relating to international tax charges being exempted from following the statutory faceless procedure. The panel, comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, allowed a writ petition filed by the employee of a private company challenging an assessment order made in April. The writ petition was filed on the ground that the assessment was issued by the deputy commissioner, income-tax, not by an officer holding charge of international tax cases. The central government framed a scheme for various purposes, including for issuance of notice under Section 148, in order to ensure greater efficiency, transparency and accountability. The scope of the scheme clearly showed that it related with issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner. Section 151A of I-T Act empowers making of a scheme for the purpose of assessment, reassessment or re-computation or issuance of a notice under Section 148 or conducting of enquiries, eliminating interface between the authority and the assessee. Under this scheme, a notice must be issued in a faceless manner. Authoring the verdict, Justice Paul said that Sub-section (2) of Section 144B of the Act makes it obligatory for undertaking faceless assessment in respect of such territorial area, or cases or class of cases, as may be specified by the board. The basis of argument of the revenue is based on this italic portion, which gives power to the board to specify in relation to persons, class of incomes and persons, etc. Disagreeing with the stance of revenue, the panel said that the notices that have been issued were in violation of the statute. The panel observed: “It is clear that the respondents have erred in not following the mandatory faceless procedure as prescribed in the scheme dated March 29, 2022. Since notices under Section 148 of the Act were not issued in a faceless manner, the entire further proceedings founded upon it and assessment orders stand vitiated. Thus, the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act and all consequential assessment orders based thereupon are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.”