Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Justdial लिमिटेड बनाम पीएन विग्नेश मा...
Corporate Law : SC slams High Court for 'playing it safe' on bail in Manish Sisodia's case, emphasizing that bail should be the norm, not the exce...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, ruling consensual relationship. Calls for legal reforms to prevent misuse of penal laws against m...
Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राज्य बार काउंसिलों द्वारा अत्य...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST case laws from July 2024, including SCN issuance, personal hearing rights, appeal delays, and more. Essential...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court admits Ecoboard Industries Ltd.'s appeal on excise duty for intermediate products, questioning Tribunal's duty impo...
Excise Duty : Case Title: M/s. Marwadi Shares and Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27124/2023; Dat...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rules Vodafone Idea is not liable for TDS on payments to foreign telecom operators. The decision aligns with earlier...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overrules India Cement case, ruling that MADA judgment should not be applied retrospectively to avoid disrupting pas...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court held that the Purchase Price as defined u/s. 2(18) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would not include purcha...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that Banks/ Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are obliged to adopt restructuring process of MSME as conte...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Corporate Law : Explore the updated FAQs on the implementation of the EPFO judgment dated 04.11.2022. Understand proof requirements, pension compu...
Income Tax : Comprehensive guide on CBDT's directives for AOs concerning the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court verdict. Dive into its implication...
Income Tax : Supreme Court's circular outlines guidelines for filing written submissions, documents, and oral arguments before Constitution Ben...
Corporate Law : The establishment M/s Radhika Theatre, situated at Warangal, Telangana was covered under ESI Act w.e.f. 16.01.1981 on the basis of...
As far as the submission of shifting of tax liability is concerned, as observed in paragraph 9 of Laghu Udyog Bharati (Supra), service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability of service tax. Though the appellant became the assessee due to amendment of 2000, his position is exactly the same as in respect of Sales Tax, where the seller is the assessee, and is liable to pay Sales Tax to the tax authorities, but it is open to the seller, under his contract with the buyer, to recover the Sales Tax from the buyer, and to pass on the tax burden to him.
Undoubtedly, in a civilized society governed by rule of law, the punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules cannot be imposed. Principle enshrined in Criminal Jurisprudence to this effect is prescribed in legal maxim nulla poena sine lege which means that a person should not be made to suffer penalty except for a clear breach of existing law.
Sri Marcel Martins Vs M. Printer & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) SEVERAL MEMBERS OF FAMILY PROVIDING CONSIDERATION TO CONVERT LEASE PROPERTY INTO FREEOLD BUT REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY HELD ON THE NAME OF ONE PERSON’S NAME-WHETHER CONSIDERED AS BENAMI PROPERTY? BRIEF FACTS: Ms. SM was a tenant (Lessee) of a residential house owned by Municipal […]
Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment in G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 636, wherein during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act, prosecution under Sections 406/420 IPC had been launched. This Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, observing that it would amount to abuse of process of law. In fact, the issue as to whether the ingredients of both the offences were same, had neither been raised nor decided.
According to a Supreme Court order as given below, there is no need for the Charitable & Religious Trusts Registered in Maharashtra to pay the 2% Annual Cess / Levy / Fees Tax Contribution to the Charity Commissioner’s Office, of their total income, which is used to run the Charity Commissioner’s office.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government and its agencies cannot alienate public property or issues licences in favour of selected individuals or companies at its sweet will. The government cannot give or withhold largesse in its arbitrary discretion or according to its sweet-will. The government cannot now say that it will transfer the property (land etc.) or will give jobs or enter into contracts or issue permits or licences only in favour of certain individuals.
There is no ambiguity, whatsoever, in the Notification issued by the Central Government. The Notification speaks of finished goods produced or manufactured by a 100% EOU and if it is sold in a DTA, the said EOU can take the benefit of the Notification No.8/97-CE. An exemption notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis:
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the Arbitrator has not exercised any discretion in the matter pertaining to the interest for the post-award period. Obviously, in absence thereof, by virtue of Section 31(7)(b) of the Act, the award would carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till 5the date of payment. Whether May 24, 2001 when the entire award amount was deposited by the appellants into the High Court is the date of payment ?
The issue which has been raised in this writ petition is whether an offence which is not compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C., can be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
SC held that No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. it further held that Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give (up) possession (of the property) forthwith on demand. Apex Court also laid fresh guidelines that caretakers, watchman or servants do not acquire any title to a property merely because of its possession by them for several years.
