Chandra Prakash Mishra Vs Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) In Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. and Others (2022) 6 TMI 203; (2022) 137 taxmann.com 366 (Supreme Court), appellant preferred a civil appeal against Allahabad High Court order in a matter concerning Value Added Tax (VAT). [Flipkart India […]
Supreme Court held that irregularity in manner of effecting the service of order irrelevant when appellants had the knowledge of order passed against them.
Supreme Court held that without the compressors and the pipes necessary to pump the dredged material, the cutter dredger would cease to function as such. Accordingly, benefit of NIL rate of duty in terms of notification no. 21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 duly available.
CCE, Aurangabad Vs Videocon Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court) Sub- Whether LCD panels are to be classified as part of television sets or audio players or independently for charging Customs duty? The Apex Court in this case was dealing with the classification of LCD Panels which were imported and were to be used as part of […]
The Constitutional Bench ruled that allows Circumstantial Evidence did not dilute the requirement of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since there were no circumstances brought on record which would prove the demand for gratification, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) would not be attracted.
Section 12A of IBC permits withdrawal of applications admitted under sections 7, 9 and 10 of IBC. It permits withdrawal of such applications with approval of 90 percent voting share of CoC in such manner as may be specified.
Supreme Court held that date of Panchnama last drawn would be relevant date for considering period of limitation of two years and not last date of authorisation
Signatories/directors cannot escape from their penal liability under Section 138 of NI Act by citing its dissolution. What is dissolved, is only company, not personal penal liability of accused covered under Section 141 of NI Act.
Once Resolution Plan stands approved, no alterations/modifications are permissible. It is either to be approved or disapproved, but any modification after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC, based on its commercial wisdom, is not open for judicial review unless it is found to be not in conformity with mandate of IBC Code.
SC held that writ petition entertained by Sikkim HC for tax levied by Government of Goa, merely because petitioning company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, is unjustifiable and lacks jurisdiction.
