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...
ITO v Mangat Ram Norata Ram Narwana and Anr. (Supreme Court of India) – There is no statutory requirement that signature on the return has to be made in presence of the Income-tax authority. Nothing has been brought in evidence by the accused Hem Raj that signature did not belong to him on the return and the penalty was paid mistakenly. We are of the opinion that the appellate court misdirected itself in not considering the evidence in right perspective and acquitting the accused, so also the High Court which failed to correct the apparent error. This render their judgments unsustainable. Any other view may induce the appellant to compel the assessee to file return in the presence of the authority so that the signature is proved by direct evidence by such authority in trial. This will lead to a difficult situation not contemplated under the Act.
Chandna Imp ex Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Supreme Court of India) – Customs – Indirect Tax – Customs Act, 1962, ss. 2(34), 28AB, 111, 114 and 124 – Jurisdiction of DRI – Appeal u/s 130E – Undervaluation – Confiscation- Appellant was engaged in the business of import plywood, inlays, MDF laminated boards and veneer sheets etc. – In search operations, certain goods were seized from the premises of the appellant – A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the DRI u/s. 124 of the Act alleging mis-declaration of quantity/ description and value of the goods – Subsequently, Commissioner ordered the confiscation of goods u/s. 111 of the Act, confirmed the demand u/s. 28AB of the Act and also imposed penalty u/s. 114 A on the appellant
M/s. Gammon India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Supreme Court of India)- Customs – Exemption under notification no. 17/2001 Customs – Contract in the name of Joint Venture – Import of machine by one party to the joint venture – actual user condition – Appellant and ‘X’, entered into a joint venture agreement dt. 18.9.2000 for submitting a bid to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for awarding a contract for construction of a road in India – The said joint venture was named as ‘Y’ – The bid tendered by the ‘Y’ was accepted by NHAI and an agreement was executed between NHAI and ‘Y’ – Subsequently, the Central Government issued exemption notification no. 17/2001-Cus., granting full exemption to the goods required for construction of roads
Ram Jethmalani vs. UOI (Supreme Court) – SC held that That the names of those individuals with bank accounts in Liechtenstein, as revealed by Germany, with respect of whom investigations have been concluded, either partially or wholly, and show cause notices issued and proceedings initiated may be disclosed; and That the Special Investigation Team, constituted pursuant to the orders of today by this Court, shall take over the matter of investigation of the individuals whose names have been disclosed by Germany as having accounts in banks in Liechtenstein, and expeditiously conduct the same. The Special Investigation Team shall review the concluded matters also in this regard to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly conducted or not, and on coming to the conclusion that there is a need for further investigation shall proceed further in the matter. After conclusion of such investigations by the Special Investigation Team, the Respondents may disclose the names with regard to whom show cause notices have been issued and proceedings initiated.
Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs G. C. Jain and another (Supreme Court of India)- Respondents imported 14 consignments of Butyl Acrylate Monomer (BAM) and cleared the same against advanced licenses by availing the benefit of customs notification nos. 203/92-Cus. and 79/95-Cus., without payment of duty – Revenue issued show cause notice to the respondents proposing confirmation of demand of duty, as also confiscation of the imported product and imposition of personal penalties alleging that impugned product imported by the respondents was defined organic chemical and was not an adhesive and exemption had been wrongly claimed by the respondents
High Court was justified in refusing to expand the scope of the reference so as to include the silver weighing 1713.807 kgs. which was confiscated u/s. 111(d) of the Act while hearing the reference with regard to silver weighing 194.250 kgs. but confiscated under a different provision of law, namely, u/s. 120(2) of the Act – Supreme Court.
CIT vs. Indian Hotels Co Ltd (Supreme Court) – The department filed a SLP challenging the order of the Bombay High Court declining to condone delay of 656 days in filing the appeal. The delay was explained as having been caused by several facts such as non traceability of case records, procedural formalities involved in the Department and the papers are to be processed through different officers in rank for their comments, approval etc. and then the preparation of the draft of appeal memo, paper book and the administrative difficulties such as shortage of staff.
Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Master Construction Co. (Supreme Court) – If a contractor alleges that he had signed a ‘no-claim’ certificate on the work done by him was under fraud, duress or undue influence, he must show evidence before the dispute is sent for arbitration. A bald allegation of duress will not do, the Supreme Court has stated in the judgment, Union of India vs Master Construction Company. In such cases the Chief Justice/his designate must look into this aspect to find out at least, prima facie, whether or not the dispute is bona fide and genuine.
Shanker Raju Vs UoI (Supreme Court) – CAT – Appointment of Member – A person who has completed ten years as a Member of Tribunal is ineligible to be re-appointed as Member even if he has not attained 65 years of age – Plain reading of proviso to sec. 10A makes it clear that the Chairman and Members appointed prior to Amending Act of 2006, on completion of either their term of service or on attainment of 65 years in the case of Chairman or 62 years in the case of Members of the Tribunal, whichever is earlier, may be considered for fresh appointment – Proviso to sec. 10A provides that such fresh appointment could be made only when the criteria prescribed under amended sec. 8 is satisfied and it is further subject to the condition that the total term of office of the Chairman shall not exceed 5 years and that of a Member, ten years.
Recently, hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer & Another {(2011) 4 SCC 602; Decided on 08.03.2011} has held that there can be no review of a judgment, if appeal has already been decided. The Court observed the principles as follows.
