In the case of Jayant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarifies a magistrate’s powers in handling offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC, allowing partial appeal by the violators.
Supreme Court in Paschimachal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Raman Ispat Private Limited held that Section 238 of IBC overrides provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.
Supreme Court held that any person summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of recording the statements cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent should sought recourse by filing criminal application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
SC upholds observations made by Allahabad HC, Once the valid document i.e. e-way bill and tax invoice, builty was accompanying with goods, therefore authorities ought not to have drag petitioner in unnecessary litigation.
India’s Supreme Court orders the conclusion of a decade-old case involving CENVAT credit demand within eight weeks. Learn more about the historic ruling of Commissioner vs Swati Menthol and Allied Chemicals Ltd.
The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a precedent on reassessment proceedings, stating no action will be taken on completed or unabated assessments without incriminating material.
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, IBC has been found to give higher priority to dues owed to secured creditors than to electricity dues. This analysis examines the court’s interpretation of IBC and its implications for creditors and power sector.
HC held that Performance linked bonus (PLB) and Computer reservation service (CRS) fees received by airline agents are not subject to service tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ (BAS).
In present case, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the CrPC wherein the details pertaining to PAN Number and TDS were missing for the registration of sale deed and there was no source of transaction of consideration for the purchase of land even when the property in dispute was highly undervalued.
A.P. Processor judgment of High Court is affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The issue is regarding the measure of levy of tax on dyeing units. The High Court had held that no tax would be imposed on wastage generated through the process. Only the goods which are embedded in the final cloth would be taxable as those are the only goods in which the property had been transferred as the process in question is works contract.
