Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court deferred hearing in a writ plea filed by a retired judicial officer seeking release of pensionary and retiral benefits for the period served as an ad-hoc district judge. Listed before a panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P. Sam Koshy was a writ plea filed by Putta Murali Mohana Reddy, who retired as V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir. The petitioner contended that his services as ad-hoc district judge from 2003 to 2018 ought to be counted for the purposes of pension, in light of the recommendations made by the Judges Committee and communicated by the High Court Registry to the state government in March 2020. It was his case that the refusal of the state to treat such service as qualifying for pension, based on its interpretation of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, and applicability of the contributory pension scheme, was arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court. The petitioner challenged the communication of the state government dated July 10, 2024, which reasoned that ad-hoc service cannot be counted for pensionary purposes. The petitioner assailed the consequential communication issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court on October 16, 2024, rejecting his claim based on the government’s stand. The panel directed the respondents to file their response.Income Tax conviction set aside Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court acquitted the director of Ilios India Private Limited, who was earlier convicted for failure to file income-tax returns within the due date, holding that the prosecution failed to establish ‘willful default’, a key ingredient under the Income-Tax Act. The judge was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by Sana Satish Babu, who was arrayed as an accused and prosecuted under various sections of the Income-Tax Act, which provide for penal consequences where a company and its officers in charge wilfully fail to file income tax returns. According to the prosecution, the company did not file its return for the Assessment Year 2013–14 despite significant business receipts and credit card transactions. Notices were issued, and the trial proceeded after unsatisfactory responses from the accused. The appellant relied on an assessment order dated November 25, 2019, wherein the income-tax department accepted the company’s delayed return, declaring a loss of Rs.21.43 lakh and assessed the tax liability as ‘nil’. It was also argued that no tax was evaded and that the default was due to internal management disputes and financial losses, not deliberate concealment. The judge observed that under Section 278E, there existed a legal presumption of “guilty intent” in tax prosecutions, but this can be rebutted. In this case, the director successfully explained the circumstances and presented credible evidence to prove the absence of wilful default. Noting that this was the accused’s first offence and that no actual tax loss had occurred, the judge found the conviction unsustainable and accordingly set it aside. Closure of Sri Chaitanya Techno School questioned Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the closure notice issued to Sri Chaitanya Techno School, situated at Koti, Hyderabad. The management of the institution was challenged by a notice issued in June by the deputy educational officer directing the school to shut operations with immediate effect. The petitioner contended that the impugned action was arbitrary, illegal, and in gross violation of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession and the right to education. The petitioners argued that the authorities acted without proper justification or due process, causing grave harm to the institution, its staff, and hundreds of students enrolled for the academic year 2025-26. The petitioner sought a declaration that the closure notice stood unconstitutional and sought a direction to the authorities to grant appropriate permission for the school to continue operations for 2025-26. The government pleader sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. Imposition of tax on boys’ hostel upheld Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court upheld the imposition of commercial property tax and penalty on a building being used as a boys’ hostel at Yamnampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Samala Poshetty and Samala Veera Swamy, advocates and owners of the building, who contended that the property was assessed as a commercial building despite having valid permission for residential use and regularisation through an occupancy certificate issued by the HMDA. The petitioners contended that the GHMC had levied property tax at the rate applicable to commercial usage and additionally imposed a 100 per cent penalty by treating the use of the premises for hostel purposes as unauthorized. They argued that the treatment of the hostel as commercial property was arbitrary and contrary to the law. They furthered their plea by relying on a decision of the Karnataka High Court to assert that hostel usage still fell under residential classification. The judge held that the usage of a residentially permitted building for running a boys’ hostel amounts to non-residential use and attracts higher tax under Rule 5(2) of the Telangana Municipalities (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 2020. The judge upheld the imposition of a 100 per cent penalty under Rule 8 for unauthorised usage, observing that a change of use without prior approval violates the prescribed rules. Rejecting the petitioners’ reliance on the Karnataka High Court decision rendered in the context of GST law, the judge noted that municipal property tax matters were governed by distinct statutory considerations and that precedents were applicable only when facts are identical. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the writ plea holding that the property tax assessment and penalty were neither illegal nor contrary to the governing statutes and rules.
Source link
