The Supreme Court declined to examine the Revenue’s challenge after noting that an intra-court appeal remedy existed under the Karnataka High Court Act. The merits of the assessment dispute were left open.
The Supreme Court held that heirs inheriting property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act take definite shares as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. A widow holding only a 1/5th share could not act as karta to sell the entire property on grounds of legal necessity.
The Court ruled that issuance of notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is the general rule for offences punishable up to seven years. Arrest can be made only in exceptional circumstances after satisfying statutory conditions and recording reasons.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a single GST show cause notice can cover multiple financial years under Section 74. The case arises from a Kerala High Court ruling that such consolidation prejudices taxpayers and violates the statutory scheme.
The Supreme Court granted interim bail while the challenge to the arrest was still pending adjudication. The Court clarified that the order did not express any view on the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court granted bail in a disproportionate assets case after noting that the accused had remained in custody for more than one and a half years and that the charge sheet had already been filed. The trial court was requested to expedite the trial.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act covers attempts to obtain undue advantage through subordinates or third parties. The key takeaway is that public officials cannot avoid liability by using intermediaries.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere at the show cause notice stage, holding that the dispute should be examined through adjudication proceedings. It left all GST exemption and circular-related issues open for determination by the authorities.
The Supreme Court held that SEBI failed to establish fraud and market manipulation in RPL futures transactions. While disgorgement was quashed, penalties for violation of position-limit disclosure requirements were upheld.
SC declined interference as statutory GST appeal was available, but allowed appeal within eight weeks and protected it from dismissal for delay.
