A.K.G. Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Termination Valid, Blacklisting Invalid – SC Separates Consequences, Enforces Strict Natural Justice The Supreme Court upheld the termination of contract but set aside the blacklisting order, holding that blacklisting is not an automatic consequence of termination and requires independent […]
The issue was whether a succession certificate granted without impleading a minor heir was valid. The Supreme Court set aside the ex parte order, holding denial of hearing to a minor vitiates proceedings.
The case involves whether limitation for assessment can be extended based on a DTAA information request. The High Court held such extension invalid as the request covered pre-2011 periods outside DTAA scope. The key takeaway is that invalid references cannot extend statutory limitation.
The Supreme Court held that tax exemptions are concessions and can be withdrawn in public interest, rejecting claims of vested rights. However, it ruled that such withdrawal must be reasonable and provide a one-year notice period to avoid hardship.
The Supreme Court declined to recall its earlier order, effectively upholding the High Court ruling that TDS was not applicable on payments for imported Business Information Reports. The decision affirms reliance on consistent AAR rulings.
The Court held that once a resolution plan is approved, prior tax liabilities stand extinguished. Reassessment under Section 148 was therefore unsustainable.
The issue was whether reassessment can proceed without disclosing full allegations to the taxpayer. The Court held that failure to provide an opportunity to respond violates natural justice. The key takeaway is that reassessment notices must clearly communicate all grounds.
The Supreme Court of India held that parties cannot enforce rights in execution after abandoning earlier suits on the same issue. The key takeaway is that non-prosecution of prior claims can bar relief even if res judicata does not apply.
The absence of a signature on the charge-framing order sheet was a curable procedural defect and did not vitiate the trial, particularly where the accused was duly informed of and understood the charges against them.
The Court held that increased financial liability cannot override the right to just compensation. It refused to revisit earlier rulings granting solatium and interest.
