Joint liability

As in the episode the appellant "SR" had also received injuries, so the possibility could not be excluded that not only the appellants but the complainant and the deceased were equally instrumental in disturbing the peaceful atmosphere

As not only the appellants were responsible, but it was the sister of the complainant who wished to meet the appellant on the night of incident and it was she who visited the Police-Post, so this Court was not inclined to exonerate the complainant and the deceased from the responsibilities, as they were also liable and responsible for the tragic incident to some extent

As there was a free fight between the parties and so admitted by the complainant, and as the deceased received a single firearm injury, so this Court was confident in holding that the approach of the trial Court qua awarding the penalty of death to the appellant "SR", was not in accordance with law, rather the Court failed to appreciate the particular atmosphere, which was holding the field at the time of occurrence and it failed to take into consideration that it was the complainant and the deceased who went to the Police-Post with a pre-determined mind to teach a lesson to the appellants; it was the responsibility of both the parties which turned to be the of death cause of killing

So, the awarding of death sentence was more than the required one which called for interference

Appeal to the extent of the appellant, "SR" was partially allowed and instead he was convicted and sentenced under S.302(b) P.P.C to life imprisonment and the remaining portion of the judgment to his extent was left intact.

Common design could, in principle, be invoked against a defendant in a claim based on misuse of confidential information, however, in order to be party to a common design, a defendant had to share with the other party each of the features of the design which made it wrongful

If, and only if, all such features were shared, the fact that some parties to the common design did only some of the relevant acts, while others did only some other relevant acts, would not stop them all from being jointly liable.

Common design could, in principle, be invoked against a defendant in a claim based on misuse of confidential information, however, in order to be party to a common design, a defendant had to share with the other party each of the features of the design which made it wrongful

If, and only if, all such features were shared, the fact that some parties to the common design did only some of the relevant acts, while others did only some other relevant acts, would not stop them all from being jointly liable.

First Appellate Authority found that the suppliers of the taxpayer were blacklisted and they did not deposit the tax into the government treasury and taxpayer was not entitled to claim of input in terms of S.8(1)(ca) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Validity

Department was not within the ambit of law while passing the order against the taxpayer for the reason that the suppliers in question were operative during the period under consideration when the business/transaction took place

If such was allowed to happen then the business would come to halt because nobody would know with regard to fate of its business concern if the subsequent events like declaring a taxpayer blacklisted were allowed to cover the period when the other business concern with whom it was dealing with, was operative and the registered person who had been called upon to show-cause entered into business transaction with the subsequently blacklisted business in good faith and as per prevailing conditions at that time

Appeal of the taxpayer was allowed and orders passed by the lower officers were directed to be vacated.