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...
Whilst the principle and the object is unexceptionable and laudatory, experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD , the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted and has in fact led to delays in litigation. On same set of facts, clearance is given in one case and refused in the other. This has led a PSU to institute a SLP in this Court on the ground of discrimination. The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However, the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. The mechanism has outlived its utility.
Although, the respondent has pleaded that it was done out of ignorance, but there appears to be an intention to evade excise duty and contravention of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, proviso of Section 11A ( i ) of the Act would get attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The cause of action, i.e., date of knowledge could be attributed to the department in the year 1997. If the period of limitation of five years is computed from the aforesaid date, the show cause notice having been issued on 15.5.2000, the demand made was clearly within the period of limitation as prescribed, which is five years.
Service Tax – Commercial Training or Coaching Service– In view of insertion of explanation in section 65 (105)(zzc) w.e.f 01.07.2003, Tribunal decision liable to be set aside– Matter remanded to Tribunal for de novo consideration. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 5453 of 2010 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX […]
U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Lucknow, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2011, Supreme Court of India, dated : 12.01.2011 (In favour of Revenue) Brief Fact of the Case: (a) UPSRTC had taken busses on rent for carrying of passengers from private bus operators under individual contracts. […]
The AAI entered into a licence agreement with the appellant by which the appellant was entrusted with the responsibility and the activity of collecting airport admission ticket charges on behalf of AAI Limited at Karipur Airport, Calicut. As per the said agreement the appellant was permitted to collect Rs . 50/- per visitor as airport admission ticket charges for which the appellant was required to pay an amount of Rs . 2,66,797/- per month as licence fee.
Union Of India Vs Indian National Shipowners Ass & Ors (Supreme Court of India)- None of the entries in the Schedule could be strictly said to be a service rendered in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas. There is justification in the findings arrived at by the High Court. The nature of work which […]
The second contention of the learned senior counsel for appellants was that the acquisition of the appellants’ land by the Government was for the purposes of the Corporation and the Corporation being a ‘company’ for the purposes of the Act, the contemplated in Part VII of the Act was required to be mandatorily followed and since the said procedure has not been followed, the acquisition is bad in law. In this regard, Mr. Pallav Shishodia placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Raja Ram and others4.
Under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition.”
The Supreme Court has said that alterations made in the will by a person do not have legal sanctity unless corrections are executed in the same manner as was done in the case of the original documents. A SC bench said those claiming benefits under an altered will must prove with convincing evidence that the testator did make such alterations to the original will in conformity with the rules governing the Indian Succession Act.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta & Ors (Supreme Court of India)- The Supreme Court last week widened the scope for insurance companies for resisting claims in road accident cases, especially on the amount of compensation.
