Madras High Court upholds fundamental right to protest for a common cause. Learn about case of Arunkanth vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board.
Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition stating that it is premature to reach a fact conclusion whether Ethephon is an insecticide to which exemption is available or not available under Section 38(1)(b) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 as proceeding u/s 124 is pending.
In a landmark ruling, Delhi High Court permanently restrains 50 rogue websites from illegally streaming Disney Hotstar shows and movies, upholding copyright protection
Karnataka High Court’s ruling on Prime Location Charges (PLC) and Floor Rise Charges (FRC) under KVAT Act, their exemption from tax, and implications. Learn more.
In case of Makhan Lal Sarkar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Calcutta High Court directs Revenue Department to reevaluate denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on Circular No. 183.
In the case of M/s. Western Carrier India Ltd vs. State of U.P., Allahabad High Court held that goods accompanied by an E-way bill and invoice should be released under Section 129 of CGST Act. Learn more.
Madras High Court held that goods cannot be confiscated and vested with the Government. Thus, court ordered provisional release of imported consignment of prohibited black pepper u/s. 110A of the Customs Act on satisfying specific conditions and requirements.
Bombay High Court held that application of Enforcement Directorate u/s. 4 read with Section 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018 praying that the Applicant (Mehul Choksi) be declared as a fugitive economic offender is acceptable as requirement of Section 4 duly complied.
Delhi High Court held that amendment of shipping bill u/s 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 allowed based on the documentary evidences which was in existence at the time the goods were exported.
Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, without indicating basis for having a reason to belief that income has escaped assessment, merely based on change of opinion is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
