The Madras High Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected at the institution stage without numbering the suit. It ruled that courts perform a ministerial function while numbering suits and set aside the trial court’s rejection order.
The Madras High Court examined repeated provisional attachment orders issued under Section 281B without detailed reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration of the attachment to enable the assessee to access working capital facilities.
The Madras High Court held that challenges relating to insolvency proceedings must follow the statutory appellate process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The writ petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust the remedy before NCLAT.
The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST demand, noting that the statutory appellate remedy was still available. The Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal subject to a 10% pre-deposit.
The Madras High Court held that reopening an assessment after four years is invalid where the assessee had already disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny assessment.
The Madras High Court set aside execution of a ₹34.5 lakh MSME award, holding that the creditor’s claim stood extinguished because it was not submitted during the CIRP and was absent from the approved resolution plan.
The Madras High Court held that issuing a single GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is impermissible and must be issued separately for each financial year.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
While interpreting Rule 39(1)(a) to mandate distribution immediately upon receipt of invoice would lead to absurdity and conflict with the statutory scheme, as ITC could not be claimed or distributed before satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Section 16.
The Court set aside the DGFT order imposing penalty and customs duty demand for alleged EPCG export obligation default. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to provide the petitioner a personal hearing.
