NCLT Chennai held that once the resolution plan is approved by Committee of Creditors, only limited judicial review is available for the Adjudicating Authority u/s. 30(2) and Section 31 of IBC, 2016 and this Adjudicating Authority cannot venture into the commercial aspects of the decisions taken by the Committee of Creditors.
Supreme Court held that a holding company and its subsidiary are always distinct legal entities and hence assets of the subsidiary company of the corporate debtor cannot be part of the resolution plan of the corporate debtor.
Kerala High Court held that the provisions of Section 7(aa) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) will have prospective operation with effect from 01.01.2022.
Bombay High Court held that industrial dispute existed when the reference was made by the appropriate Government under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 doesn’t provide any limitation for making a reference.
Rajasthan High Court held that there is no restriction that application for advance ruling can be made only by the supplier. Even registered person liable to pay tax on reverse charge can file an application for advance ruling.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that notification no. 20 of 2003 dated 20.07.2023 prohibiting export of Non-Basmati White Rice cannot have the retrospective effect. The said notification shall have prospective effect only.
Kerala High Court held that when a property kept not for trade, but for an investment purpose is sold, the gain has to fall under head ‘capital gains’ and such transaction is only taxable under capital gain and not under adventure of trade.
CESTAT Delhi held that goods imported are IC-Codecs and are classifiable under Customs Heading 8542 39 90 and hence are exempted from payment of customs duty leviable on goods imported into India.
Karnataka High Court held that passing of a blacklisting order without prior notice and without any opportunity of being heard cannot be sustained in law.
Supreme Court held that Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable in respect of Mysore Sales and that the liquor vendors(contractors) who bought the vending rights from the appellant on auction cannot be termed as “buyers”
