KARTA, MYNAMPATI SRI MARUTHI RAMA PRASAD(HUF), BHIMAVARAM V. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE AND 2 OTHERS

WP/33071/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Mynampati Sri Maruthi Rama Prasad (HUF), represented by Mr. M.S.M. Rama Prasad, who filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, and other income tax authorities. The petitioner challenged the communication dated 07.08.2017, which declared their income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17 as defective. The return was initially accepted but later deemed non-compliant with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically citing issues under Section 139(9) and Section 44AA. The petitioner argued that the return was wrongly declared defective and sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to reconsider the return. The court examined the applicability of various sections of the Income Tax Act and the binding nature of circulars issued by the Board of Direct Taxes, ultimately finding in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 769027 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CCE & Service Tax v. Merino Panel Product Ltd., Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE, Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE, CCE v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries, CCE Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. C/Tv.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B NARASIMHA SARMA; VIJAY PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Defective return; Income Tax; Mandamus; Presumptive taxation; Writ petition; Circular Compliance
• Section: 119; 44AD; 139; 44AB; 44AA

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY A TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT AMARAVATI < THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 33071 OF 9ni7 Between: Mynampati Sri Maruthi Rama Prasad (HUF) Apartments, Balusumudi, Bhimavaram - Represented by its Karla: Mr, M.S M, Rama Prasad, S/o Sri M.Sri Ranganayakulu Flat No.; F4, Sal Teja 534 202, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Processing Centre, Post Bag No.: 1, Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore - 560 100. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Bhimavaram, Road, Bhimavaram - 534 201. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre Bag No.: 1, Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore - 560 100. Tax, Bangalore, Centralized Aayakar Bhavan, J.P , Post ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith praying that in the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1 st Respondent, dated 07.08.2017, in invalidating the Return of Income filed by the Petitioner in Form ITR 4, for the Assessment Year 2016 - 17 on 10.09.2017 as bad in law, arbitrary, mechanical, violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same after directing the Respondents to consider the Return of Income filed by the Petitioner. LA. NO: 1 OF 2017tWPMP. NO: 41145 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to stay all further proceedings, pending disposal Petition. praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be of the above Writ Counsel for the Petitioner SRI. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents B NARASIMHA SARMA ' Counsel for the Respondents VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA The Court made the following: ORDER GN, J. &VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 ^ . THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND . THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Writ Petition No.33071 of 2017 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar) i Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Income-Tax Department, appearing for the Respondents. 2. The writ petition is preferred impugning the communication dated 07.08.2017, whereby the Assessing Officer (for short, “the A.O.”) has assessed the returns filed by the petitioner-assessee as a invalid return, by placing reliance on the provisions of Explanation (f) to sub-section (9) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) read in conjunction with Section 44AA of the Act. ‘ 3. The facts in a nutshell are that, the Petitioner claims to be a H.U.F. represented by the Kartha viz., Mynampati Sri Maruthi Rama Prasad and that they have been regularly filing their returns of income as H.U.F. and which returns includes rental income, agricultural income and income from business of fish culture. That as is the practice, the assessee filed their returns of income for the assessment year 2016-2017 vide e-filing 28.07.2016 and whileso, they availed of the special provisions and declared their returns in Form ITR-IV, as prescribed under the Act. The on 2 GN, J. &VGKR, J.' W.P.No.33071 of 2017 returns filed by the Petitioner were acknowledged by the Respondent by way of receipt of return of income. Thereafter, the 1®' Respondent, after assessment, was pleased to consider the returns as defective one for not being in-compliance with the provisions of Proviso (f) to sub section (9) of Section 139 of the Act r/w. Section 44AA of the Act. In these circumstances, the instant Writ Petition came to be filed impugning the endorsement, dated 07.08.2017, under which the return of income filed by the Petitioner came to be returned as being defective and not in compliance with the provisions of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would invite the attention of 4. this Court to the provisions of Section 44AA, Section 44AB and Section 44AD of the Act. The same are re-produced for the sake of convenience and which read as under: “44AA. Maintenance of accounts by certain persons carrying on profession or business.- (1) Every person carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession or the profession of accountancy or technical consultancy or interior decoration or any other profession as is notified by the Board in the Official Gazette shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as may enable the Assessing Officer to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Every person carrying on business or profession not being a profession referred to in sub-section (1) shall,- (i) if his income from business or profession exceeds one lakh twenty thousand rupees or his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business or GN, J. & VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 ■ profession exceed or exceeds ten lakhs rupees in any one of the three years immediately preceding the previous year; or (ii) where the business or profession is newly set up in any previous year, if his income from business or profession is likely to exceed one lakh twenty thousand rupees or his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business or profession are or is likely to exceed ten lakhs rupees, during such previous year; or (iii) where the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of the assessee under section 44-AE or section 44-BB or section 44-BBB, as the be, and the assessee has claimed his income to case may be lower than the profits or gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his business, as the case may be. during such previous year; or (iv) where the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 44AD ^ are applicable in his case and his income exceeds the amount which is not chargeable to income-tax in maximum any previous year, keep and maintain such books of account and other documents enable the Assessing Officer to compute his total income as may in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that in the case of a person being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the provisions of clause (i) and clause (ii) shall have effect, as if for the words, “one lakh twenty thousand the words “two lakh fifty thousand rupees” had been rupees substituted: Provided further that in the case of a person being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the provisions of clause (i) and clause (ii) shall have effect, as if for the words “ten lakh 4 GN. J. &VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 had been the words “twenty five lakh rupees rupees substituted. (3) The Board may, having regard to the nature of the business or profession carried on by any class of persons, prescribe by rules, the books of account and other documents (including inventories, wherever necessary) to be kept and maintained under sub section (1) or sub-section (2), the particulars to be contained therein and the form and the manner in which and the place at which they shall be kept and maintained. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Board may prescribe, by rules, the period for which the books of account and other documents to be kept and maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be retained. 44AB. Audit of accounts of certain persons carrying on (a) carrying on business or profession - Every person business shall, if his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business exceed or exceeds one crore rupees in any previous year [***]; Provided that in the case of a person whose— (a).... (b)... get his accounts of such previous year audited by an accountant before the specified date and furnish by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that this section shall not apply to the person, who declares profits and gains for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 44AD 5 GN, J. &VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 - his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may business does not exceed two crore rupees in such and be, in previous year; 44AD. Special provision for computing profits and gams of business on presumptive basis. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43-C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to cent of the total turnover or gross receipts of the eight per assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as higher than the aforesaid sum claimed to the case may be, a sum shall be deemed to have been earned by the eligible assessee of such business chargeable to tax under be the profits and gains head \"Profits and gains of business or profession Provided that this sub-section shall have effect as if for the had been H . the words “eight per cent.”, the words “six per cent, substituted, in respect of the amount of total turnover or gross receipts which is received by an account payee cheque or of electronic clearing system an account payee bank draft or through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as or before the due use be prescribed during the previous year sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of that may date specified in previous year. (2)... (3)... (4)... Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing of this section, an eligible assessee to whom the of sub-section (4) are applicable and whose total , exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to required to keep and maintain such books of (5) provisions provisions income income-tax, shall be account and other documents as required under sub-section 6 GN, J, & VGKR, J. W.P.No.3.3071 of 2017 of section 44-AA and get them audited and furnish such audit as required under section 44-AB. (6) The provisions of this section, notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, shall not apply to - (i) a person carrying on profession as referred to in sub section (1) of section 44AA; (II) a person earning income in the nature of commission brokerage; or (iii) a person carrying on any agency,business. a report of or Explanation, - For the purposes of this section,- , (a) \"eligible assessee' means,- an individual. (i) Hindu undivided family partnership firm, who is a resident, but not a limited or a liability partnership firm as defined under clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009); and who has not claimed deduction under any of the sections 10-A, 10-AA, 10-B, 10-BA or deduction under any provisions of Chapter Vl-A under the heading \"C.- Deductions in respect of certain in the relevant assessment year; (ii) incomes (b) \"eligible business' means,- any business except the business of plying, hiring leasing goods carriages referred to in section 44- AE; and (i) or (ii) whose total turnover or gross receipts in the previous year does not exceed an amount of two crore rupees.” Following provisos shall be inserted after sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Explanation to section 44AD by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1.4. 2024: GN, J. & VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 Provided that where the amount or aggregate of the amounts received during the previous year, in cash, does not exceed five per cent of the total turnover or gross receipts of such previous year, this sub-clause shall have effect as if for'the words \"two crore rupees\", the words \"three crore rupees\" had been substituted; Provided further that for the purposes of the first proviso, the receipt of amount or aggregate of amounts by a cheque drawn on a bank or by a bank draft, which is not account payee, shall be deemed to be the receipt in cash.” 5) He would then take the Court to the provisions of Section 119 of the Act, which reads as under: “119. Instructions to subordinate authorities.- (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board: Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued- (a) so as to require any incorpe-tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or (b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals) in the exercise of his appellate functions. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,- (a)... (b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of 8 GN, J. & VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law; (c) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of by general or special order for reasons to be specified therein, relax any requirement contained in any of the provisions of Chapter IV or Chapter Vl-A, where the assessee has failed to comply with any requirement specified in such provision for claiming deduction thereunder, subject to the following conditions, namely:- cases cases the default in complying with such requirement was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee; and the assessee has complied with such requirement before the completion of assessment in relation to the previous year in which such deduction is claimed: (i) (ii) Provided that the Central Government shall cause every order issued under this clause to be laid before each House of Parliament. 3. r * *]” Lastly, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would place reliance circular No.05/2010, issued by the Board and titled as explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, and therein, he would lead the Court to paras.21.2(e) and 21.2(f), which read as under: B) on a 9 GN, J. & VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 salient features of the new presumptive “21.2. The taxation scheme are as under: (a).,. (b)... (c),.,. (d)... opting for the above scheme is exempted of books of accounts related to such business (e) An assessee from maintenance required under section 44AA of the Income-tax Act. (f) An assessee with turnover below Rs.40 lakhs, who below the presumptive rate prescribed under as shows an income these provisions, in limit, required, to audited. in case his total income exceeds the taxable maintain books of accounts and also get them (g) of Section 44AA, Section He would submit that the provisions 44AD deal with presumptive income and that by the 7) 44AB and Section Board has been pleased to create a separate income/earning from business etc., does not Circular No.5 of 2010, the class of assesses, whose exceed Rs.40 Lakhs in the revenue year and in respect of such class of deemed it fit to exempt them from the rigors of assessees, the Board has exemption from producing their books of of audit; that the the provision by providing accounts along with the return of income for the purpose assessment being contrary to the explanatory notes under the warrants intervention and the impugned (No.2) Act of 20,09, the same impugned endorsement be set aside provisions of Section l-inance He would further contend that the 119 of the Act clearly mandate that all authorities 10 GN, J. &VGKR, J. W,P.No.33071 of2017 . are bound to observe and follow all such orders, instructions and directions issued by the Board and the explanatory note, more particularly, para.21.2(e) and 21.2(f) should not be contrary to the exceptions as set out in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 119 of the Act, the Returning Officer-1®' Respondent was bound to obey the dictate of the circular as noted supra. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 8) Respondent would make a valiant attempt to take the Court to proviso (f) to sub-section (9) of Section 139 of the Act to contend that the production of.all books of accounts are mandatory. He would also take the Court through the provisions of Section 44AD and would vehemently contend that there is no exception to the mandate of the law and that being the position obtaining as on the, date of assessment, the endorsement holding the returns as defective does not warrant any interference. Cn a specific query as to the efficacy of the circular and the binding nature of the same, he would fairly admit the position. 10) In view of the above, the short question that arises for oansideration is: Whether the Assessing Cfficer erred in not extending to the Petitioner, the benefit of Circular No.5 of 2010? I 4 11 Vi GN, J. & VGKR, J. W.P,No.33071 of 2017 11) The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 119 of the Act have make it amply clear that the Board may issue such orders, instructions and directions, etc., from time to time to other income-tax authorities and such authorities and ail other persons employed in the execution of the Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 12) It is not in dispute that the Circular No.5 of 2010 has been issued by the Board and in the absence of any authority to the contrary, the authority/officer was bound to obey the mandate of the circular and Paragraph 21(2)(t) clearly exempts an assessee who opts for the scheme from maintenance of books of accounts related to such business as required under Section 44AA of the Act. The failure of the A.O. to adhere with the mandate of the circular or in other words exemption granted with the circular, is wholly unsustainable. 13) The law in this regard is no more res Integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court as in the case of CCE & Service Tax v. Merino Panel Product Ltd., (2023) 2 see 597 was pleased to held in paras.19, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 26, which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity and convenience: “19. However, what needs to be additionally ascertained is whether the appellant acted in contravention of its own circular. The reason for this is that while citation of an incorrect provision 12 GN, J. & VGKR, J. W.F.No.33071 of 2017 may not, by itself, lead to an invalidation of the show-cause notice, but contravention of a binding circular that mandates a particular methodology to be followed might. The power under the CEA for issuance of such administrative/executive directions is contained in Section 37-B. The binding nature of such circulars has long been acknowledged by this Court. > 20. In Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE (1999) 7 SCC 84] the settled position on this point of law was noted in the following passage : (SCC p. 87, para 4) “4. The question for our consideration in these appeals is ; what is the true nature and effect of the circulars issued by the Board in exercise of its power under Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? This question is no more res integra in view of the various judgments of this Court. This Court in a catena of decisions has held that the circulars issued under Section 37-B of the said Act are binding on the Department and the Department cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the instructions issued by the Board. These judgments have also held that the position may be different with regard to an assessee who can contest the validity or legality of such instructions but so far as the Department is concerned, such right is not available.” 21. The rationale behind the requirement for the Revenue to abide by its own administrative directions and interpretation of different parts of the CEA and CEVR, was commented upon in Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE [ (1996) 10 SCC 387] : (SCC p. 392, paras 15-16) “15. There can be no doubt whatsoever, in the circumstances, that the earlier and later circulars were issued by the Board under the provisions of Section 37-B, and the fact that they do not so recite does not mean that they do not bind Central Excise officers or become advisory in character. There can be no doubt whatsoever that after 21-11-1994, excise duty could be levied upon micronutrients only under the provisions of Heading 31.05 as “other fertilisers”. If the later circular is contrary to the 13 GN, J. &VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 terms of the statute, it must be withdrawn. While the later circular remains in operation the Revenue is bound by it and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid. 16. We reject the submission to the contrary made by the learned counsel for the Revenue and in the affidavit by M.K. Gupta, working as Director in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.'One should have thought that an officer of the Ministry of Finance would have greater respect for circulars such as these issued by the Board, which also operates under the aegis of the Ministry of Finance, for it is the Board which is, by statute, entrusted with the task of classifying excisable goods uniformly. The whole objective of such circulars is to adopt a uniform practice and to inform the trade as to how a particular product will be treated for the purposes of excise duty. It does not lie in the mouth of the Revenue to repudiate a circular issued by the Board on the basis that it is inconsistent with a statutory provision. Consistency and discipline are of far greater importance than the winning losing of court proceedings.” 23. While the Department's hands are tied with regard to its Circulars, no such prohibition operates on courts and tribunals. It is incumbent upon the adjudicatory bodies to ascertain the correct position of law unencumbered by the Revenue's interpretation as crystallised in its administrative directions. A Constitution Bench of this Court in CCE v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries [(2002) 2 see 127] while interpreting an exemption notification issued under the CEA, had noted in para 11 of its judgment that ; (SCC p. 130) or 11. ...regardless of the interpretation that we have placed the said phrase [‘‘appropriate”], if there are circulars which have been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which place a different interpretation upon the said phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue.” on 25. Following this, the position of law which materialised was that the Revenue was at liberty to issue circulars on the interpretation but courts and tribunals or application of different provisions 14 GN, J. & VGKR, J. W.P.No,33071 of 2017 would give effect to the decisions of the Supreme Court as the law of the land. Another Constitution Bench of this Court in CCE Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [(2008) 13 SCC 1] drew a line in the sand with regard to any future confusion on this point, in definitive terms and held as follows : (SCC p. 4, para 7) V, “7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the Executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law.” 26. The other aspect of the dispute deals with whether the plain wording of Rule 9 of the CEVR abrogates the Circular in any way. On this point, a very recent decision of this Court by a three- Judge Bench in C/Tv. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [(2023) 4 SCC 561] has provided an interpretation of various past decisions, including the Constitution Bench in Ratan Melting [(2008) 13 SCC 1], and laid down that : (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority case [(2023) 4 SCC 561] , SCC para 136) \"136. In the opinion of this Court, the views expressed in Keshavji Ravji [ (1990) 2 SCC 231] , Indian Oil Corpn. [(2004) 3 SCC 488] and Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [(2008) 13 SCC 1] (though the last .decision does not cite Navnit Lai Jhaveri [(1965) 1 SCR 909 : AIR 1965 SC 1375]), reflect the correct position i.e. that circulars are binding upon departmental authorities, if they advance a proposition within the framework of the statutory provision. However, if they are contrary to the plain words of a statute, they are not binding. Furthermore, they cannot 15 GN, J. & VGKR, J. W.P.No.33071 of 2017 bind the courts, which have to independently interpret the statute, in their own terms. At best, in such a task, they may be considered as departmental understanding on the subject and have limited persuasive value. At the highest, they are binding on tax administrators and authorities if ■they accord with and are not at odds with the statute; at the worst, if they cut down the plain meaning of a statute, or fly on the face of their express terms, they are to be ignored.” (emphasis in original)” A bare reading of the above would clearly demonstrate the binding nature of the circulars issued by the Board on the department and its authorities and officers. 14. 15. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement/order, dated 07.08.2017, issued by the 1®* Respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 1®’ Respondent Assessing Authority assessment/validation of the returns in terms of the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009. for No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/-A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT/REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// W' To, 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, Centralized Processing Centre, Post Bag No.: 1, Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore - 560 100. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Bhimavaram, Aayakar Bhavan, J.P Road, Bhimavaram - 534 201. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Post Bag No.: 1, Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore - 560 100. One CC to SRI. A.V.A. SIVA KARTHIKEYA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA Advocate [OPUC] 4. 5. 6. 7. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2024 ORDER WP.No.33071 of 2017 0 4 FFR ^ Curreni aecuon . y % o o Co ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS "