https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289079 The High Court upheld the order directing the appellant to deposit costs of Rs. 50,000 due to an alleged whimsical order passed without her being heard. The Court rejected the appellant's claim of not being heard, noting representation by the Government Advocate and that writ petitions are against the State, not individual malice. The Court considered a Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant's counsel but found the Single Judge's decision to impose costs on the officer valid, based on findings of malice-in-fact and malice-in-law. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order to deposit costs. en-us Mon, 14 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:56:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289079 The High Court upheld the order directing the appellant to deposit costs of Rs. 50,000 due to an alleged whimsical order passed without her being heard. The Court rejected the appellant's claim of not being heard, noting representation by the Government Advocate and that writ petitions are against the State, not individual malice. The Court considered a Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant's counsel but found the Single Judge's decision to impose costs on the officer valid, based on findings of malice-in-fact and malice-in-law. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order to deposit costs. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 14 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289079