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 criticizes Pune Police for copying FIR from private complaint, highlighting legal implications and citizen harassment is...
Corporate Law : Allahabad HC asserts that Section 498A IPC is often misused against entire families to exert pressure. Employment prospects should...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID alone is not reliable for determining age in insurance claims, directing LIC to reassess...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
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 ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court affirms ITAT's decision to delete income tax addition under Section 69 due to lack of direct evidence against ...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC rules that GST authorities can survey business premises for verifying transactions when goods are intercepted without...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court inTvl. Arudra Engineering Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) ruled that C-Forms cannot be deemed non...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court judgment on Hajee S M Ahamed and Company vs Deputy State Tax Officer, remanding ₹25,000 GST demand and ₹1.36...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta HC reinstates GST appeal for Rahul Bansal, ruling technical glitches can't negate statutory rights to challenge orders un...
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...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
Raj Chamunda Roadlines Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.1,85,248/, which is more than the amount of fine in lieu of confiscation in terms of the order of confiscation passed under section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax […]
he total replacement cost of three machineries in question purchased by the Assessee amounting to Rs.54,59,149/- came to be allowed by the Tribunal as ‘repairs maintenance expenditure’ or ‘revenue expenditure’.
Election Commission Of India Vs Central Information Commission (Delhi High Court) An EVM which is sought for by this RTI application is not miniature/replica and hence cannot said to be a model. It cannot be termed to be information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. It is manifest that Section 3 of the […]
A reading of Section 83 of the CGST Act makes it clear that a sine qua non for exercising powers under this provisions is that proceedings should be pending u/s 62, 63, 64, 67 or 74 of the CGST Act. Presently, the proceedings u/s 67 are no longer pending and pursuant to search, proceedings under any of the other sections mentioned in Section 83 were not initiated.
A. B. Pal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) as per Notification No. 49/2019 dated 09.10.20 19 issued by CBIC, the date prescribed for filing of Form GST TRAN-1 under Rule 117 (1A) of the CGST Rules has been extended to 3 1.12.2019. This itself demonstrates that the Respondents […]
Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Sub-section 4B to Section 73 of the Fin Act fixes the time or limitation period within which the Central Excise Officer has to adjudicate and decide the show cause notice. The time period fixed under Clause A or B is six months […]
Soni Traders Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) it emanates that the Respondents have no cogent ground to deny the benefit of the Notification No. 49/2019 dated 09.10.2019 issued specifically to grant relief to taxpayers who faced difficulty in filing Form GST TRAN-1 due to technical glitches. Credit standing in favour of an […]
CIT Vs Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Narain (Delhi High Court) Conducting of samagams and spiritual discourses are part of religious activities and religious activity in the context of the Hindu religion need not be confined to the activities incidental to a place of worship only, like a temple. It is not in dispute that the activities […]
It is clarified that in case the petitioner is hampered in any manner from availing the benefit of aforesaid judgment, due to non opening of the Portal by the Respondents, then the petitioner shall be permitted, in the alternative to claim the benefit of unutilized credit in their GST-3B Forms to be filed for the month of January,2020 either electronically or manually.
Bombay HC held that in case, the deductor has failed to upheld the correct details in form 26AS the benefit should be given to the assesssee on the basis of evidence produced before the Department.
