SC issued notice as Delhi HC quashed Section 153C notices beyond the ten-year block period while clarifying key principles on search assessments.
The Supreme Court held that the classification dispute involved factual issues that should be decided by the statutory authority. It restored the show cause notices and set aside the High Courts order.
The Supreme Court held that Article 226 jurisdiction over Armed Forces Tribunal orders is not barred. It ruled that judicial review by High Courts remains available despite the Tribunal’s appellate framework.
Supreme Court held that a Power of Attorney holder cannot depose on matters requiring the plaintiff’s personal knowledge, including readiness and willingness in a specific performance suit. The Court upheld dismissal of the suit.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order directing the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It extended the time for filing the appeal by two weeks while allowing all legal and factual grounds to be raised before the Appellate Authority.
The Supreme Court held that disputed monetary claims arising from a construction contract could not be decided in writ proceedings. It ruled that such disputes must be resolved through the agreed arbitration mechanism.
The Supreme Court held that cancellation of a public tender was arbitrary because it was driven by ministerial directions without proper application of mind. It restored the successful bidder’s contractual rights and set aside the High Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court held that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters where an effective statutory remedy before the DRT exists. The ruling reiterates the limited scope of Article 226 in commercial recovery disputes.
The Supreme Court held that a mortgage redemption suit filed before expiry of the agreed mortgage term must fail. It set aside the remand order and restored the dismissal of the suit as premature.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge after the High Court held that the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT on identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were not perverse.
