The Supreme Court permitted the appeal to be entertained without pre-deposit after noting that the appealable order predated the amendment introducing the requirement. The interim relief remains subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition.
The issue concerned the maintainability of a class action petition under the Companies Act. The SC, acting on the parties’ consent, referred the disputes to arbitration and set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders while leaving all issues open.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, which had held that the issues raised by the Revenue were already settled by precedent in the assessee’s own case.
The Court held that a delay of about 2200 days could not be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. It restored the Trial Court’s order rejecting the recall application due to prolonged and unexplained inaction.
Sanand Properties P. Ltd. Vs Jt. Commr. of I.T. Range 6 And Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Reopening of Assessment Valid Because Survey Unearthed Fresh Tangible Material: SC; 35% Share Taxable as Revenue Since Expenses Never Reduced Entitlement: SC; Receipts Linked to Gross Sales Held Taxable as Business Income, Not Profit Share; Assessment Reopening Sustained […]
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling that reassessment under Section 147 lacked a valid basis. The courts found that the assessee had never claimed Section 10(38) exemption on the alleged penny stock gains.
The Supreme Court held that a later judgment modifying the legal position cannot, by itself, justify review of concluded cases. Relying on Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it dismissed the review petition and refused liberty to seek review.
The Supreme Court held that a stay on recovery proceedings only suspends enforcement and does not wipe out the obligation to pay interest on excise arrears. The beneficiary of an interim order must restore the successful party to the position it would have occupied otherwise.
The Supreme Court held that final judgments cannot be reviewed merely because the legal position later changes. It ruled that the overruling of an earlier precedent does not satisfy the requirements for review under Order XLVII CPC.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail in a GST matter involving liability below ₹5 crore. The ruling reaffirmed that offences falling below the statutory threshold are treated as non-cognizable and bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
