The court ruled that insisting on a flat 20% deposit to grant stay is illegal, holding that authorities must exercise discretion under Section 220(6) after considering merits and hardship.
Madras High Court held that compounding charges payable by petitioner as per revised Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 is unsustainable since on the date of writ order i.e. 13.04.2022, the revised guidelines was not in force. Accordingly, writ petition deserved to be allowed.
The writ was filed long after appellate orders were passed and without approaching ITAT. The Court held that delay and failure to exhaust statutory remedies disentitled the assessee from writ relief.
Neither the RPWD Act nor the Mental Healthcare Act addressed guardianship for comatose persons. The Court held that constitutional powers can be exercised to secure care, dignity, and asset management.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice for demand of interest and penalty after obtaining discharge certificate under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDRS] is not tenable in law. Writ disposed of, accordingly.
Bombay High Court held that interest under section 25(4) of the GVAT on delayed payment of VAT on sales of High Bouquet Spirit (HBS)/Rectified Spirit (RS)/Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) justifiable in spite of uncertainty with regard to levy to be imposed on the same.
Orissa High Court held that recovery towards arrear electricity duty demand set aside since there is procedural flaw in Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 [OPDR proceeding] and violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.
Calcutta High Court held that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction in as much as the alleged infringements has occurred in Delhi and not in West Bengal. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that the power of revocation of detention orders is specifically vested with the Central Government and not with the detaining authority under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [COFEPOSA Act].
The Delhi High Court held that sponsorship payments included consideration for worldwide use of event trademarks. The ruling confirms that such rights constitute royalty liable to withholding tax.
