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.
Corporate Law : Karnataka High Court advocates for Uniform Civil Code to accelerate equality for all women, regardless of religion or caste. ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court quashes adultery case under Section 497 IPC, stressing women are not property and citing the example of Draupadi ...
Income Tax : Kerala HC rules no separate challenge needed for Sec 263 remand order before appealing revised assessment; restores Malabar Instit...
Corporate Law : Chhattisgarh HC rules pension can't be recovered without legal basis, quashing recovery order against ex-govt employee and orderin...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay HC rules GST on developer rights under a development agreement does not fall under reverse charge as per Entry 5B of Notifi...
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 ...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court rules uploading GST notices to the common portal is sufficient but often ineffective service. Court urges tax of...
Goods and Services Tax : Andhra HC allows GST refund for zero-rated services despite service exclusion in registration; clarifies scope of CGST/IGST provis...
Goods and Services Tax : Dealers registered under Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act), 2008 were duty bound to reverse or debit the input tax credit as prescribe...
Excise Duty : Gujarat High Court held that imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000 on department for disregarding the directions by Central Excise and...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court directs CBI investigation into the allegations of amassment of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of i...
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...
The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. There is an allegation against this petitioner that he illegally availed Input Tax Credit. The petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2018. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer for bail and submits that this petitioner has taken the benefit of about Rs. 30 crores illegally by way of Input Tax Credit.
Shan Mohammad Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court) By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 129 & 130 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding Sections of the Rajasthan Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Section […]
If a human error which can be seen on naked eye is detected, such human error cannot be capitalised for penalisation. Normally, this Court could not have persuaded to accept the contention on prima facie value as it is a matter for decision by competent authority and this Court can only order release of the vehicle and goods as against Bank guarantee.
Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Rajasthan High Court) Respondents are directed to provisionally entertain the GST TRAN-1 and other returns of the petitioner either by way of opening the portal or manually. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT Issue notice to respondents. Mr. Kinshuk Jain, learned counsel accepts […]
M. K. Agrotech Private Ltd. Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) The main purpose of crossing a demand draft is to ensure that the payment is cleared by means of an account, i.e., the payment is deposited in the Bank Account i.e the person in whose favour the demand draft has been drawn. It ensures the […]
Daily Express Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Section 129 is a self-contained code. It lays down the entire mechanism for provisional release of the goods. Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause. It stands protected from every other provision. Earlier this Court, on more than one occasion, has held that unfilled Part […]
PCIT Vs Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Section 292BB does not dispense with issuance of any notice that is mandated to be issued under the Act, but merely cures the defect of service of such notice if an objection in such regard is not taken before completion of assessment or reassessment as time […]
Delhi HC to examine validity of Circular No.07/07/2017-GST & Rule 61(5). Challenge on due date for filing GST return and delegation of authority. Next hearing on 12th February, 2019.
Claim for deduction under section 35(2AB) could not be defeated on the ground that approval from prescribed authority was granted in the year subsequent to the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred.
In the present cases on hand, the request made by the writ petitioner had been complied with and the reasons for reopening of the escaped assessment had been communicated to the writ petitioner. The said propositions are very well recognised by the Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Thus the very provision stating that the Assessing Officer should record the reasons does not mean that the same should be communicated along with the notice itself.
