Article 265 mandates that taxation must have legislative authority. The article explains how it protects citizens from arbitrary executive levies.
Examines whether India’s Equalisation Levy effectively addresses digital taxation challenges, highlighting its strengths, structural limits, and alignment with emerging global reforms.
ROC Ahmedabad imposed penalties after finding prolonged non-compliance with mandatory Independent Director requirements. The ruling underscores that delay in board composition compliance attracts adjudication under Section 454.
The ROC Mumbai imposed a ₹10,000 penalty under Section 450 after an incorrect AGM date was mentioned in Form AOC-4. The order clarifies that authorized signatories are liable for inaccuracies in digitally signed e-forms, even if errors are inadvertent.
Supreme Court held that possession without an Occupancy Certificate cannot be forced upon the homebuyers. Accordingly, orders of NCDRC are affirmed and held that appellant shall continue to pay compensation as determined by the NCDRC without any default.
Delhi High Court held that prior testimony inadmissible under section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since prosecution didn’t prove that witness is unavailability for post charge cross-examination. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Supreme Court held that commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors [CoC] is non-justiciable. Stalling CIRP on account of settlement proposal without approval by CoC is not justifiable.
NCLAT Chennai amendment application in company law matter not allowable since the order doesn’t record any reasoning. Accordingly, order stand quashed and question of maintainability is remitted back to be considered afresh.
The Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and at least two hours before remand, failing which the arrest and custody become illegal.
The Authority held that a works contractor registered in Uttar Pradesh is not required to obtain separate GST registration in Rajasthan for a turnkey substation project. As no fixed establishment existed in Rajasthan, the location of supplier remained Uttar Pradesh.
