The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal citing unexplained delay and no merit in challenging the High Court ruling. The High Court had quashed reassessment for lack of facts specific to relevant assessment years.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s refusal to entertain a writ petition due to availability of statutory appeal. It permitted the petitioner to file an appeal without being barred by delay.
The case involved reopening of assessment on deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as time-barred, leaving intact the High Court ruling that reassessment was invalid on a settled issue.
The issue was whether a show cause notice cancelling GST registration can be challenged via writ. The SC held it is not maintainable and allowed adjudication to proceed.
The Supreme Court rejected the Revenue’s appeal solely on limitation, holding that the delay explanation was inadequate. The ruling highlights strict adherence to timelines in filing SLPs.
The case examined whether a dying declaration alone could sustain conviction. The Court upheld life imprisonment, ruling that a medically certified and consistent dying declaration is sufficient proof of guilt.
The Supreme Court upheld that Section 206C(1C) applies only to lawful mining arrangements involving lease or licence. It ruled that compounding fees from illegal mining are not subject to TCS.
Legal Analysis and Narrative Brief: Dale and Carrington Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. P.K. Prathapan and Others (Supreme Court of India) on 13th September, 2004 1. Part I: The Narrative Accounts In the sophisticated theater of corporate litigation, the technicalities of share allotments and board resolutions often serve as a veil for deeply personal […]
Supreme Court held that Generation Based Incentive is intended to be disbursed over and above tariff set by State Electricity Regulatory Commission [SERC]. Accordingly, the applications filed by intervention/impleadment are allowed.
The issue was whether equal punishment must apply to co-delinquents. The Court held that higher responsibility justifies stricter punishment, restoring dismissal and rejecting parity claims.
