Who can be said to be related person u/s 4(4)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 to enable authorities to discard transaction value & arrive at a valuation otherwise?
SC held that fixation of MRP must have been mandated by law and in the present case the institutional sale to paramilitary forces being exempted from such fixation under legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,2011, the voluntary fixing of the MRP could not make the respondent eligible to get the exemption on institutional sales and thus allowed the SLP of the department.
Victory Iron Works Ltd. Vs Jitendra Lohia (Supreme Court of India) The main ground of attack of the appellants to the impugned orders of the NCLT and NCLAT is that by virtue of the Explanation under Section 18 of the Code and also by virtue of the judicial pronouncements, the disputes between the Corporate Debtor […]
Supreme Court held that as there is no final assessment in fake invoice case made under GST Act, the appellant cannot be said to be under a legal liability. Accordingly, condition of pre-deposit for grant of anticipatory bail not imposable.
Basic premise of Section 105 & search proceedings is reasonable belief that some objective material exists on record to trigger searches
Supreme Court of India held that in money laundering case the issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence.
Supreme Court of India held that conditions under Section 45 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is applicable to Anticipatory Bail application under section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Supreme Court held that Article 3 of the Constitution of India provides that Parliament may by law form new States and alter the areas, boundaries or names of the existing States (which includes Union Territory).
Supreme Court held that employees who secured VRS benefits and left the service of MSFC voluntarily during this period, stand on a different footing. They cannot claim parity with those who worked continuously, discharged their functions, and thereafter superannuated.
Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration in respect of exemption u/s 2(15) or section 11 in respect of publication of advertisement for consideration in light of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority.
