List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mohammed Azeem v. Sabeeha & Others (2025) held that a Family Court has no power to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) while executing an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which relates to maintenance for wives, children and parents. 

What was the Background of Mohammed Azeem v. Sabeeha & Others (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner, Mohammed Azeem, challenged an order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru. 
• The Family Court had allowed the wife's application and issued a Look Out Circular against the husband for non-compliance with a maintenance order. 
• The petitioner contended that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to issue an LOC while executing a maintenance order. 
• The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021), which held that coercive enforcement measures for non-payment of maintenance should be resorted to only as a last measure when default is found to be wilful and contumacious. 
• The respondent-wife's counsel argued that once a maintenance order is passed, it is the duty of the husband to comply with it, and since the petitioner was residing outside the country and had failed to comply, the Family Court had no other option but to issue the LOC. 
• The Court noted that it had become a practice for officers who requested issuance of LOCs to take no steps to close them, even when court orders directed suspension of such circulars. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court found merit in the petitioner's submissions and held that the Family Court had no authority to issue a Look Out Circular while executing an order passed under Section 125 CrPC. 
• Justice Kanneganti observed that maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC create a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders, and if a party defaults, the remedy available is execution through attachment of property, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or civil imprisonment. 
• The Court clarified that Look Out Circulars are intended to prevent accused persons or offenders from evading the criminal process, and cannot be issued for recovery of maintenance dues. 
• The Court observed that continuing an LOC despite a court order amounts to illegality and contempt of court, and also violates the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The Court directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instructions to all concerned authorities, ensuring that whenever a court suspends an LOC, the same is promptly communicated to the Bureau of Immigration. 
• The Court directed that responsibility be fixed on the officer who requested issuance of the LOC, failing which departmental action must be initiated, observing that otherwise there would be no sanctity to court orders. 
• The Court also directed the Registrar General to circulate a copy of the order to all courts dealing with proceedings and execution under Section 125 CrPC, clarifying that Look Out Circulars cannot be issued in such cases. 
• Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Family Court. 

What is Section 125 of CrPC/144 of BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is a social justice provision aimed at preventing destitution and financial hardship of a neglected spouse and children. It empowers a Magistrate of the First Class to grant monthly maintenance, interim maintenance, and proceeding expenses to the wife, legitimate or illegitimate child, who is unable to maintain themselves, from a person who has sufficient means but refuses or neglects to do so. 

Key statutory Features: 

• Section 144(1): Empowers the Magistrate to order monthly maintenance to wife and children. 
• Second Proviso to Section 144(1): Allows the Magistrate to grant interim maintenance and expenses during the pendency of proceedings. 
• Third Proviso to Section 144(1): Directs that interim maintenance applications should ideally be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice. 
• Section 144(2): Maintenance may be payable either from the date of application or order, as the Magistrate deems fit. 
• Section 144(3): Non-payment of maintenance can attract warrant proceedings and imprisonment up to one month. 
• Section 144(4): Disqualifies the wife from receiving maintenance in cases of adultery, refusal to live with husband without sufficient cause, or mutual consent to live separately. 
• Further procedural clarity is offered under Section 145(2), which mandates that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the respondent or their advocate, with a provision for ex parte proceedings and setting aside such orders upon showing sufficient cause within three months. 

Source: Gauhati High Court 

Why in News? 

The single judge bench of Justice Kardak Ete in the case of Shri Pankaj Mohan v. The Union of India & Anr. (2025) allowed a writ petition seeking restoration of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration which had been cancelled due to non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. 

What was the Background of Shri Pankaj Mohan v. The Union of India & Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The petition was filed by a proprietor engaged in execution of works contracts whose GST registration had been cancelled by the GST authorities. 
• The GST authorities cancelled the registration after issuance of a show cause notice alleging continuous default in filing returns for six months. 
• The petitioner submitted that the failure to file returns was not deliberate and occurred due to lack of familiarity with the GST online portal and miscommunication with his tax consultant. 
• By the time the show cause notice was received by the petitioner, the window for filing reply and attending personal hearing had already expired. 
• The petitioner informed the Court that all pending returns up to October–December 2024 had since been filed. 
• The petitioner had also duly paid all applicable taxes along with the pending returns. 
• The GST Department did not oppose the grant of relief to the petitioner. 
• The Department agreed that the issue was covered by earlier decisions of the Gauhati High Court in similar matters. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, the authorities are empowered to drop cancellation proceedings if pending returns are filed along with payment of tax, interest and late fee. 
• The Bench emphasized that cancellation of GST registration carries serious civil consequences and should not be continued where the taxpayer is willing to regularise defaults. 
• The Bench observed that cancellation of registration affects the fundamental right to carry on business. 
• The Court held that even where the statutory period for filing revocation has expired, constitutional relief can be granted to enable restoration upon full compliance. 
• The Court directed that the petitioner may approach the concerned GST authority within 60 days seeking restoration of the cancelled registration. 
• The authority was directed to consider the application and restore the registration expeditiously, subject to compliance with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. 
• The restoration was made conditional upon payment of all arrears, interest and late fees by the petitioner. 
• In view of the above observations, the Bench allowed the writ petition of the petitioner. 

What is GST Registration and its Cancellation? 

About GST Registration: 

• GST (Goods and Services Tax) registration is a mandatory requirement for businesses engaged in supply of goods or services above prescribed threshold limits. 
• Registration enables businesses to collect tax from customers and claim input tax credit on purchases. 
• GST registration is governed by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and corresponding State GST Acts. 
• The registration process is conducted through the GST online portal maintained by the GST Network. 
• Registered taxpayers are required to file periodic returns declaring their sales, purchases and tax liability. 

Cancellation of GST Registration: 

• Under Section 29 of the CGST Act, GST registration can be cancelled on various grounds including non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. 
• The cancellation process begins with issuance of a show cause notice to the registered person. 
• The taxpayer is given an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and attend a personal hearing. 
• If the explanation is not satisfactory or no response is received, the registration may be cancelled by the proper officer. 
• Cancellation of GST registration has serious civil consequences as it affects the right to carry on business and collect tax from customers. 
• A person whose registration is cancelled cannot issue tax invoices or claim input tax credit. 

Restoration of Cancelled GST Registration: 

• Rule 22 of the CGST Rules provides for revocation of cancellation of registration. 
• Under Rule 22(4), a person can apply for revocation within 30 days from the date of service of the cancellation order. 
• The authorities may drop cancellation proceedings if pending returns are filed along with payment of tax, interest and late fee. 
• Even where the statutory period for filing revocation has expired, courts can grant constitutional relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
• Courts recognize that cancellation affects fundamental rights and are willing to grant relief where the taxpayer demonstrates willingness to comply with all requirements.