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 : Bombay HC held that a 21-year-old woman cannot be compelled to return home or marry against her wishes, treating residence, marria...
Corporate Law : The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for delivering judgments since every judicial orde...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Corporate Law : The Bombay High Court held that merely organising protests or morchas against government decisions cannot justify externment. It r...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody attracts constitutional liability under Article 21, even if ca...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC has directed CBDT to ensure that there is a mandatory one-month gap between date for furnishing tax audit reports (unde...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court granted a one-month extension for filing TARs under Section 44AB for AY 2025-26, citing delayed audit utility...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court is hearing a petition from the Chartered Accountants Association regarding persistent glitches on the new I...
Income Tax : Delhi HC upheld a Section 69C addition for unexplained capitation fee, holding that no credible evidence established its source an...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC held that Section 80P(4) does not bar Section 80P(2)(d) deduction on interest earned by a cooperative society from inve...
Corporate Law : Gauhati HC held that transportation of manufactured tea is not exempt under Entry 21(a), as Section 65B(5) governs the meaning of ...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi HC directed processing of GST refund with interest, holding that appellate orders must be implemented unless stayed by a com...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi HC held that GST refund cannot be withheld merely due to a proposed appeal, directed release of refund with interest, and tr...
Income Tax : The Court held that membership cannot be granted where the underlying flats do not exist and are merely refuge areas. It ruled tha...
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...
Read the full text of the judgment/order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding sealing or breaking premises. Get detailed analysis and conclusion.This article provides an overview of the judgment/order issued by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. versus Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding the sealing or breaking of premises. The analysis delves into the arguments presented by the petitioner and the response from the learned counsel for the Revenue. Finally, the conclusion highlights the court’s decision and subsequent actions. Analysis: The petitioner, Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., challenges the order issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 67(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner, a private limited company, claims to be a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act. The case revolves around the sealing of the petitioner’s premises by the respondent officers during a search operation. The petitioner argues that the sealing was done without legal authority. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the authorization order for the search was issued solely based on suspicion and does not grant the authority to seal the premises. Additionally, it is argued that Section 67(4) of the Act does not empower the respondent No.3 to seal the business premises since access was not denied by the petitioner. On the other hand, the Revenue’s counsel presents the original file, which contains an authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Enforcement], South Zone, Bangalore. The authorization grants the officer, Sri J.J. Prakash, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the power to conduct inspection, search, and seizure of the premises in question. The court acknowledges the validity of this authorization, thus refuting the petitioner’s argument. The court refers to Section 67(4) of the Act, which empowers the authorized officer to seal or break open premises and receptacles suspected of containing goods, accounts, registers, or documents. The Revenue asserts that denial of access to the computer system and the disruption of the tally software and internet connection led to the invocation of Section 67(4) and subsequent sealing of the premises. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent No.3, assures the court that the petitioner’s premises will be unsealed in the petitioner’s presence on a mutually convenient date, provided the petitioner cooperates with the inspection and search of the computer system and other records. Conclusion: After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court orders the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on a revised date of 08.02.2019, at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner is expected to cooperate with the inspection and search of the premises, including the computer system. This judgment clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the GST Act and emphasizes the importance of lawful procedures in conducting searches and sealing premises.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice and all consequential proceedings in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Calcutta High Court allows writ petition in the case of L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros Limited Vs ACIT, setting aside an earlier rejection of appeal due to a delay of 148 days. The court sets a cost of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid to WBGST Authority.
In Sri Gopal Store vs AO case, Orissa High Court ruled that a minimum of seven days must be provided for compliance with a show cause notice in faceless assessment proceedings
Gujarat High Court in case of Sampatraj Dharmichand Jain Vs ITO concludes that Reassessment notice issued beyond prescribed time period and based on unverified details is invalid.
Calcutta High Court quashes interest demand and orders refund in Anita Tosniwal vs RBI case. Dispute over property ownership rights analyzed.
A last-minute application to stay LOCs for international travel met with strong disapproval and a fine from the Bombay High Court, reinforcing the importance of timely applications to court.
Explore the recent Telangana High Court decision in the case of Nektar Therapeutics India Pvt Ltd vs Union of India, where the court quashed a show cause notice due to its issuance by an improper officer.
Dive into the Calcutta High Court’s verdict on the case of Newby Teas Overseas Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeal), leading to a remand for readjudication of a customs refund claim.
Detailed analysis of Delhi High Court’s decision in Home Credit India B.V. Vs ACIT, focusing on the quashing of a reassessment notice due to lack of clarity in its recipient.
