The Supreme Court issued a press release dated May 5, 2025 stating that the three-member Committee, consisting of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, constituted for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge, has submitted its report dated May 3, 2025 to the Chief Justice of India on May 4, 2025. On March 22, 2025, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an unprecedented three-member in-house inquiry into unauthenticated news of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma about wads of currency notes being found at his official residence where a fire broke out on March 14. Given the dubious nature of news reporting based on planted information, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain a writ petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma on March 28, 2025.
It has come to light that Chief Justice of India has forwarded the committee’s report to Justice Varma and sought his reply in compliance with the principle of natural justice. The committee has analysed evidence and recorded the statements of over 50 people, including head of Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and Delhi Fire Services in the aftermath of the fire incident at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence at around 11.35 pm on March 14, 2025.
On March 28, Union government's Department of Law and Justice, notified the transfer of Justice Varma from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court. The President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, made the decision to transfer Justice Varma, under Article 222(1) of the Constitution and directed him to assume the charge of his office in the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the Chief Justice of India, on March 24 had recommended his transfer. The decision was taken by the Collegium after meetings conducted on March 20.
It is germane to reiterate the analysis of Justice Varma's 106 judgements in the last few months, available at https://t.co/kFF19vxGrm which reveal a pattern. He has been part of benches which have pronounced orders in some 350 cases.
The overall pattern emerging from these judgments illustrates that Justice Verma’s court ruled in favor of petitioners in 72.73% of individual tax cases, with full or partial relief granted in 16 out of 22 cases. The government, in particular, struggled to defend reassessment matters, losing 13 out of 19 cases.
Over the past year, Justice Varma's docket mostly comprised taxation matters, especially reassessment and search/seizure cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Corporations dominated as petitioners in his court at 54.7%, followed by government agencies at 27.3% and individuals at 16%. Government agencies, as respondents, defended 70.8% of matters, while corporations and individuals defended 23.6% and 3.8% of cases, respectively.
The petitioners had a 64.2% success rate, with relief granted in 68 cases, denied in 30.2% of cases, 5.6% received partial relief. The reassessment matters dominated, with 45 cases arising under Section 148, 28 cases under Section 147 concerning income escaping assessment, and 18 cases related to search and seizure assessments under Section 153A. His orders favored strict scrutiny of tax enforcement mechanisms. With 64% of rulings favoring petitioners, predominantly private entities, it is evident that Justice Verma found multiple reassessment orders by the government to be procedurally flawed. The government lost cases, particularly in reassessment challenges under Sections 148 and 147.
Several of these orders were struck down due to procedural lapses, reinforcing a judicial approach which places due process at the center of tax administration. An examination of 22 cases where private individuals were parties, the petitioners succeeded in 63.64% of these cases, with full relief granted in 14 matters. The relief was denied in 27.27% of cases, while partial relief was granted in 9.09%.
The reassessment challenges proved to be particularly successful, with an approval rate of 90%. In Subhash Chander Dabas, the court of Justice Varma quashed a ₹24.8 crore notice due to factual inconsistencies.
In Rohit Kumar’s case, a ₹46 lakh reassessment was struck down for failing to meet the ₹50 lakh threshold and lacking the necessary sanction. In Shaily Juneja and Primary Real Estate Investments, reassessment notices were invalidated due to the absence of a mandatory Section 143(2) notice. In Abhinav Jindal Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), the court of Justice Varma nullified a reassessment on the grounds of improper sanction. Even in tax disputes beyond reassessment, petitioners found success in securing relief.
In Ravi Kumar Sinha vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (2024), a ₹86 crore ESPS tax was reduced to face value, considering lock-in restrictions. In Akash Poddar, the court of Justice Varma reclassified a ₹3 crore settlement as capital gains, securing full relief for the petitioner.The appeal of the Commissioner was dismissed. The order of the Tribunal dated 27 April 2007 was set aside on 14 August, 2024.
In Kanwaljeet Kaur (2025), involving over 70 reassessment petitions, the court of Justice Varma avoided quashing notices outright, it instructed Assessing Officers to reassess cases per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal, protecting petitioner rights while maintaining the administrative process.
In a matter where the petitioner lost, the matter involved revision of payment allowance of Rashtriya Pariyojna Nirman Nigam Limited employees, which was dismissed by a single judge, and in appeal, was also dismissed by the bench of Justice Verma on the ground that this is prerogative of executive and cannot be interfered by the judiciary. In matters which involved initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, the Bench declined to interfere, stating that initiating proceedings under Section 153C does not require a connection between the searched and non-searched entities, and the petitioner was liable to be searched per the Supreme Court's decision in Income Tax Officer vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia.
In the case concerning Dr. CP Rai's removal from National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), who was reinstated by a Single Judge, his judgement reflected an benign approach towards the petitioners. NIHFW appealed, but Justice Verma found only three of seven charges proven, deeming the removal disproportionate. He upheld the Single Judge's decision. His rulings reflect a strong commitment to procedural fairness and a heightened level of judicial oversight in taxation disputes. The high success rate of reassessment challenges suggests a persistent concern over procedural deficiencies in tax administration.
But the deafening silence of Delhi Bar is intriguing. Has Delhi Bar inferred that the unsubstantiated news reporting wasn't a case of yellow journalism, embedded journalism and an exercise in made-to-order reporting? Is it convinced that the entire exercise isn't an instance of false flag operation? Can Delhi Bar pinpoint errors in the judgements of Justice Varma which can be linked to colourful reporting? The fact remains that the report of the three-member Committee is likely to act like sunlight and throw light on the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment