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 : The Allahabad High Court held that a three-month gap between the alleged harassment and the student’s suicide broke the necessar...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that supplier tax payment remains mandatory for ITC claims under Section 16(2)(c). However, ITC cann...
Income Tax : The article explains how the High Court held that corporate guarantee fees do not qualify as Fees for Technical Services under the...
Goods and Services Tax : The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that refund arising from an unconstitutional GST levy carries a constitutional right to interes...
Corporate Law : The Allahabad High Court observed that criminal case delays are caused not only by judicial officers but also by inadequate infras...
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...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Goods and Services Tax : The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 62 stood deemed withdrawn after the taxpayer filed ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Karnataka High Court held that blocking an electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A without a pre-decisional hearing was unsust...
Goods and Services Tax : The Karnataka High Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not mandate a pre-decisional hearing before provisional attachm...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings issued beyond three years for AY 2018-19 were invalid because approval wa...
Goods and Services Tax : Telangana High Court granted bail in a GST fake ITC case involving alleged wrongful availment of Rs.21.89 crore credit. The Court ...
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...
The Calcutta High Court held that retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration alone cannot justify denial of Input Tax Credit, requiring a reasoned evaluation of submitted documents.
The Bombay High Court quashed an order as the show-cause notice failed to specify date, time, and venue for personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court restored the proceedings for lawful adjudication.
The Court held that documents seized during a survey justified rejection of accounts and best judgment assessment. Partial relief granted by the Tribunal was found adequate, warranting no further interference.
The Court quashed an ex-parte GST order where the initial notice did not comply with procedural requirements, emphasizing proper reissuance of notice and lawful proceedings.
The Court set aside the dismissal of a GST refund appeal, finding the Appellate Authority miscalculated the limitation period. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with proper hearing.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to file a fresh reply after initially failing to respond to a GST notice. Relief is conditional on depositing 50% of disputed tax, after which the authority must reconsider the matter.
The court held that a works contractor cannot challenge a GST assessment months after becoming aware of it, as a rectification application was already pending.
The Court ruled that deductions could not be denied when ST-15 forms were genuine though stolen, and the assessee had no role in the theft. It held that denying benefit would unjustly penalize the assessee despite compliance with statutory requirements.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the six-month limitation under Section 254(2) starts from the date of receipt of the ITAT order, not the date of its passing, ensuring petitioners can file timely rectification applications.
The Court held that the show-cause notice under Section 73 CGST did not lack jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to file a reply and allowed the Adjudicating Authority to examine all objections independently.
