Access significant and up-to-date high court judgments for legal insights and precedent. Stay informed about the latest legal decisions and their impact on various areas of law.
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC ने DGGI की ₹2.5 करोड़ की वसूली को अवैध ठहराया। जान...
CA, CS, CMA : Key tax & legal updates from 3rd-9th Mar 2025: Income tax exemptions, GST rulings, RBI liquidity measures, IBC cases, and Supreme ...
Income Tax : Explore February 2025's key income tax rulings covering issues like R&D deductions, secondment taxability, trust exemptions, and d...
Goods and Services Tax : February 2025 GST Case Law Compendium covers significant High Court and Supreme Court judgments on key GST issues. Orders issued u...
Corporate Law : Explore key landmark civil cases in India, including their legal impact on constitutional rights, reservations, governance, and wo...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA: Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank [WPO NO. 547 OF 2019 JUNE 24, 2022 ] Facts: ♦ Petitioner is a holder ...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e...
Corporate Law : In order to dispense with the physical signatures on the daily orders (which are not important/final orders and judgments) of the ...
Corporate Law : Karnataka HC upholds Flipkart's stance on TDS under Section 195, ruling seconded employees' salaries as reimbursements, not taxabl...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court sets aside DRP's order in FIS Payment case, directing a fresh review under ITAT rulings on Section 56(2)(viib). K...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court held that repeated placing and removing from call books is not a valid justification for non-adjudication of show...
Goods and Services Tax : Mohit Enterprises Vs Commissioner of State GST And Vat Department of Trade And Taxes Delhi (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court, in...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that seizure of goods under section 129 of the IGST/ CGST Act can be don...
Corporate Law : Bombay High Court implements "Rules for Video Conferencing 2022" for all courts in Maharashtra, Goa, and union territories, effect...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court has exempted the Lawyers from wearing Gowns practicing in the High Court with effect from March 2, 2022 till furt...
Shri Amman Dhall Mill Vs Commissioner of Customs (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Appellate Tribunal committed serious error in law by ordering release of Canadian Green Peas under Section 125 on payment of redemption fine as by holding that release of goods was the only option to Customs Commissioner in the case on hand the language […]
Where there was non-consideration of material evidence by a statutory authority, judicial review by the High Court in exercise of it’s power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is permissible, and existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of such power.
Naresh Dayal & Ors. Vs Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The present suit has been filed by seven plaintiffs who are all members of defendant No.1 Club in a representative capacity claiming that they are the permanent members of defendant No.1 which has 5553 permanent members, about 4925 person enjoy the […]
Assistant Commissioner-V, Sales Tax was acquitted for allegedly demanding Rs.4,000 as illegal gratification after 25 years as there was no recovery from the appellant, presumption U/s 20 regarding acceptance of bribe could not be raised against him and there was neither any demand nor acceptance or recovery from the appellant. Hence, all the ingredients of an offence U/s 7 and 13(1)(d) could not be satisfied. The conviction order was prima facie unlawful as Section 20 was not invoked.
Pinax Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, we are in agreement with Sri Gautam Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the principles of natural justice, in passing the order stands violated. Also, we are of the view […]
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has relied on the Section 28AAA of the Customs Act to contend that the SCN is not time barred inasmuch as the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts and wilful mis-statements in claiming the benefits under the Scheme. Prima facie we find merit in the contention of the respondent.
Pro Sportify Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, thus any enquiry/audit/investigation initiated after aforesaid date cannot make any person ineligible because period running from 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 is meant for filing application and […]
Flair Writing Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The Gujarat High Court issued the notice to Government over constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 50 of CGST Act, 2017. The subject matter of challenge in the present litigation is to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 50 of the […]
The Hon’ble High Court concluded that order passed by JCCT Appeals cannot be said erroneous. Also concluded that the position adopted by ADC is not in line with KVAT Laws where the order passed by ADC was based on assumption that the benefit of refund of tax paid on purchase of Inputs can be granted only in respect of manufacture and processing of goods which is not at all prescribed under the law. Accordingly, there is no justification on the part of ADC in invoking revisional power u/s 64 (1) of the KVAT Act.
BGR Mining & Infra Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in respect of the issue of levy of interest under Section 50 of the Act on the gross tax liability as upheld in appeal by the Respondent Joint Commissioner of State Sales […]
