The issue highlights how organized crime operates across jurisdictions, requiring global collaboration. It emphasizes cooperation mechanisms like extradition and intelligence sharing to ensure effective enforcement.
The issue revolves around the complexities in transferring shares without nomination. The framework allows direct vesting of shares in the nominee, eliminating the need for probate or succession certificates. This ensures faster and hassle-free transmission.
The issue was whether two adjudication orders for the same tax period constituted overlapping proceedings under GST law. The court held that proceedings on different issues—short payment vs. excess ITC—do not violate the bar on parallel actions.
The issue was whether a taxpayer could seek revocation after missing the statutory deadline due to non-filing of returns. The court allowed manual filing, holding that authorities should consider such applications on merits despite procedural delay.
The case involved GST cancellation for non-filing of returns during financial hardship post-Covid. The court allowed manual revocation filing, emphasizing relief where delay was unintentional.
The issue was whether an adjudication order ignoring GST already paid under reverse charge could be challenged. The court allowed rectification under Section 161, emphasizing correction of apparent errors.
The issue was whether recovery proceedings should continue during a pending GST dispute. The court granted relief by requiring a 10% deposit and staying coercive action until the Tribunal decides.
The issue concerns regulatory burden on smaller NBFCs without systemic risk exposure. The RBI introduced exemption for such entities under “Unregistered Type I NBFCs.” The key takeaway is that low-risk NBFCs may operate without registration subject to strict conditions.
The case clarifies that reducing shareholding below the threshold mandates discontinuation of the equity method. The retained stake must be remeasured at fair value under Ind AS 109.
The Court held that Article 22(1) does not mandate a separate written document for grounds of arrest. Communication through an arrest memo with essential facts is sufficient, validating the arrest.
