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 : 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 : Kerala High Court quashes order restricting a woman's liberty, stating participation in protests is not sufficient reason to curta...
Income Tax : Delhi HC ruled WGF Financial Services can't claim bad debt deduction under Sec. 36(1)(vii) as furnishing guarantees wasn't its reg...
Corporate Law : Kerala HC rules police must assess both sides in sexual assault cases, warning against treating complaints as absolute truth. ...
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 ...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC orders 6% interest on delayed tax refunds under DTVSV Act, citing principles of natural justice. Refund delays due to a...
Income Tax : Guwahati High Court's landmark judgment on the tax rate for carbonated beverages containing fruit juice as per FSSAI Regulation 2....
Goods and Services Tax : Gauhati High Court held that sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] is constitutionally ...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment based on borrowed satisfaction without there being any link between informati...
Income Tax : Deloitte Haskins And Sells Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) The High Court recently adjudicated a case concerning a writ petition file...
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...
A detailed analysis of the Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of PCIT Vs Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. regarding the legitimacy of claiming depreciation on revalued assets.
Unravel the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the Vodafone Roaming Services Sarl Vs ACIT case. Understand the implications of the court’s verdict on the disputed income tax assessment order.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court denies anticipatory bail to Mohit Jain, the proprietor implicated in a large-scale GST fraud scandal involving the formation of 25 bogus firms. The court notes the severity of the economic offense and its grave implications on the national economy.
Madras High Court held that order of assessment based on issuance of general notices calling for particulars is liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court held that exemption from payment of tax leviable under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 is allowable on cars purchased by visually handicapped persons.
Examine the Calcutta High Courts ruling in Usha Martin Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, highlighting how the court adjudicated on matters related to delayed appeals, e-Way Bill expiration, and tax levies.
The Union of India challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order on upgrading the pay scale of Income Tax Officers. The Calcutta High Court ordered the formation of a Special Anomaly Committee to resolve the issue.
Comprehensive analysis of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in favor of Jindal Drugs Ltd., discussing the precedent-setting case related to the advance authorization scheme and customs duties.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the department is liable to make payment of interest after the expiry of three months from the date the refund of pre-deposit amount becomes due.
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.
