Confidential communications with a legal professional adviser cannot ordinarily be compelled before a court. Where a person offers himself or herself as a witness, disclosure may be required only for communications necessary to explain evidence already given. Other confidential communications remain protected.

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1: Mr Sudhir M Mehta (2058). For the Petitioner(s) No. 1: Ms Shailee S Mehta (5873). For the Respondent(s) No. 1: None. ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) The petitioner seeks to challenge the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (`the Act' hereinafter) dated 27.07.2022 for the A.Y.2013-... ... ...

Legal professional privilege is not waived merely because a party gives evidence voluntarily or otherwise. Giving evidence does not constitute consent to disclosure of protected matters. Where a party calls a barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil as a witness, consent is implied only to the extent that the party questions the legal professional about matters which would otherwise remain protected from disclosure.

Professional communications confidentiality extends to interpreters and to clerks or servants of barristers, pleaders, attorneys and vakils. They are subject to the same restrictions governing privileged communications with legal advisers.

Professional communications privilege bars disclosure, without the client's express consent, of employment-related client communications, documents encountered professionally, and legal advice. The obligation continues after employment ends. Privilege does not protect communications made to further an illegal purpose or facts observed during employment showing a crime or fraud committed after employment began. A request for defence regarding a past offence remains protected, but using a forged instrument to obtain property and observed subsequent fraudulent alterations are outside the privilege.

Confidentiality of offence-information sources protects Magistrates and police officers from compelled disclosure of the source of information concerning any offence. Revenue officers receive the same protection for information relating to offences against public revenue, and include officers employed in or connected with any branch of public revenue.

Section 124 protects official communications made to public officers in official confidence from compelled disclosure where the officer considers that disclosure would injure public interests. It bars compulsion to disclose such confidential official communications, subject to the officer's assessment of potential public-interest harm.

Evidence derived from unpublished official records concerning affairs of State cannot be given unless permission is obtained from the officer heading the relevant department. The departmental head may grant or withhold permission at discretion, thereby regulating disclosure and evidentiary use of State-related material held in unpublished official records, including material maintained in official departmental custody and linked to governmental affairs.

Marital communications cannot be compelled from a current or former spouse and cannot be voluntarily disclosed without the communicator's consent or that of the communicator's representative in interest. The protection is excluded in proceedings between married persons and in prosecutions concerning a crime committed by one spouse against the other.

Judges and Magistrates cannot be compelled to answer questions about their judicial conduct or matters learned in court while acting in that capacity, unless a subordinate court issues a special order. They may, however, be examined regarding other events that occurred in their presence while acting judicially. Questions concerning an allegedly improper deposition or statements made before a Magistrate require a superior court's special order.

In every civil proceeding, each party to the suit and the husband or wife of any party is competent to testify. In criminal proceedings against a person, that person's husband or wife is likewise competent to testify. The rule treats marital status as no bar to competency in these proceedings.

A witness unable to speak may give intelligible evidence through writing or signs made in open court, which is deemed oral evidence. Where the witness cannot communicate verbally, the court must take assistance from an interpreter or special educator in recording the statement and ensure that the statement is videographed.

Competency to testify extends to all persons unless tender years, extreme old age, bodily or mental disease, or a comparable cause prevents understanding questions or giving rational answers. Mental illness alone does not disqualify a witness; disqualification depends on impaired comprehension and inability to respond rationally.

Scientific research approval is accorded to M/s GCS Foundation, formerly known as The Gujarat Cancer Society, Ahmedabad, under section 45(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 read with rule 35 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026. The approval applies to the entity's scientific research for five tax years, from Tax Year 2026-27 through Tax Year 2030-31. Retrospective effect is certified as not adversely affecting any person.

GST treatment classifies food supplied by cloud and central kitchens as restaurant service taxable at 5% without input tax credit, while pre-manufactured ice cream sold without preparation is goods taxable at 18%. Government-funded disability-scheme coaching and toll overloading charges receive the applicable exemptions, and qualifying vehicle rentals are treated as giving on hire. Mineral exploration and mining rights, specified amusement admissions, and alcoholic-liquor job work are subject to 18% treatment in the stated circumstances, while qualifying overseas satellite launch services are zero-rated exports.

Section 117 creates an estoppel preventing an acceptor of a bill of exchange from disputing the drawer's authority to draw or endorse the bill. A bailee or licensee cannot deny the bailor's or licensor's authority at the commencement of the bailment or licence. An acceptor may challenge the purported drawer's genuineness, while a bailee may prove another person's superior right to delivered goods.

Tenant and licensee estoppel prevents a tenant, or a person claiming through the tenant, from disputing the landlord's title to immovable property at the beginning of the tenancy while it continues. It also prevents a person who entered property under a licence from denying the licensor's title to possession when the licence was granted.

Section 115 establishes estoppel where a person, through a declaration, act or omission, intentionally causes or permits another person to believe a matter to be true and to act on that belief. In a suit or proceeding between those persons, or their representatives, the person making or permitting the representation and that person's representative cannot deny the truth of the matter represented.

When a victim deposes before the court that she was subjected to sexual harassment, had her modesty outraged, was disrobed, stalked, or had her privacy intruded upon, or was sexually harassed by any means, the court may, unless the contrary is proved, presume that the identified person committed the relevant offence. The presumption is discretionary and may be rebutted by proof to the contrary.

Section 114A creates a presumption of absence of consent in specified aggravated rape prosecutions. Where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved, consent is in issue, and the woman states before the court that she did not consent, the court must presume absence of consent. The provision applies only where these cumulative conditions are met, and sexual intercourse includes the acts covered by clauses (a) to (d) of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.