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...
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of New India Assurance Company which had rejected the claim of a ship-breaking firm for compensation. The firm bought a Belgian vessel and was bringing it from Singapore on its ‘funeral voyage’ to Alang port in Gujarat for demolition. It wrecked on way in high seas due to bad weather. The ship was covered by marine insurance and the ship-breaker invoked the policy. The insurer rejected the claim leading to litigation in the consumer forum. The National Consumer Commission asked the insurance company to pay Rs 14 crore with 9 per cent interest to Priya Blue Industries, the scrap dealer in ships. However, the insurer appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that the loss suffered due to the ship wreck was properly assessed by the surveyors and the commission order was correct.
Siddachalam Exports Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA- Duty drawback – goods had been over-valued with the intention of claiming undue draw-back amounts – instead of first determining the value of the goods on the basis of contemporaneous exports of identical goods, the Revenue erroneously resorted to a market enquiry – contemporaneous exports of identical goods was not available, the procedure laid down in Rules 5 to 8 of the 1988 Rules was required to be followed and market enquiry could be conducted only as a last resort – in the absence of any other independent evidence relating to market enquiry, there was no other corroborating evidence to support the allegation of inflation in FOB value – the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy (Supreme Court) – A compact disc containing recording of telephone conversation could be valid evidence according to Section 3 of the Evidence Act and Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, the Supreme Court has stated in the case, K K Velusamy vs N Palanisamy. One of the parties in a suit over sale of property produced a CD in the court as evidence. The opposite party objected to its validity as evidence, arguing that the recordings were created with the help of mimicry specialists. In this context, the Supreme Court stated that electronically recorded conversation is admissible in evidence, if the conversation is relevant to the matter in issue and the voice is identified and the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasure, addition or manipulation. A CD recording of a relevant conversation is comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India and upheld the acquisition of land in Etawa, Uttar Pradesh for a project. The complaint of the land losers was that the award of compensation for the acquisition was not given within the prescribed one year from the declaration. The Supreme Court ruled that though there was delay in the award, the acquisition itself did not lapse according to the provisions of the Railways Act. However, the court further said that the delay will entitle the land losers to get additional compensation at a rate not less than 5 per cent of the value of the award for each month of delay.
Whether ‘royalty’ determined under Sections 9/15(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957, as amended) is in the nature of tax?
Binod Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand & Others- In the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that the basic allegation is amassing of illicit wealth by various former Ministers, including a former Chief Minister of the State. The money alleged to have been so earned is of unprecedented amounts. However, there is no clear allegation so far about its laundering in the sense mentioned above, but there is an allegation of its investment in property, shares etc. not only in India but also abroad.
The second respondent (referred to as the `Developer’) entered into a development agreement with the owners of certain lands at Bachupally village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for constructing independent houses and multistoried Apartment buildings with common facilities in a layout known as `Hill County township’. The landowners as the first party, the developer as the second party and the first respondent who wanted to acquire an apartment therein as the third party entered into an agreement for sale dated 16.10.2006 under which the land-owners agreed to sell an undivided share equivalent to 87 sq.yds. out of a total extent of 16.95 acres to the first respondent and the developer agreed to construct a residential apartment measuring 1889 sq.ft. for the first respondent. The total consideration for the undivided share in the land, apartment and car parking space was agreed as Rs.55,89,368. The agreement contemplating the entire price being paid in installments, that is 10% on booking, 85% in seven instalments upto 15.3.2008 and 5% at the time of delivery. Clause (14) of the said agreement dated 16.10.2006 provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration.
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s Makkad Plastic Agencies- The assessment of the assessee-respondent for the Assessment Year 2001-02 was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 29(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 [for short “the Act of 1994”] holding that the tax on “thermo ware” and “vacuum ware”, which were the articles sold by the assessee-respondent during the relevant assessment year, should be levied Sales Tax at 10 per cent instead of 8 per cent, treating them as separate articles from plastic goods/products. Consequently, the liability of difference of tax at 2 per cent along with surcharge, interest and penalty was also levied.
SC rejects claim of firms using HSD in captive units- The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a batch of appeals by various companies claiming credit of duty paid on high speed diesel oil used in their captive electricity generating plants. The Rajasthan high court had earlier rejected their contention in the case, Sangam Spinners Ltd vs Union of India. Their argument was that they had acquired accrued and vested right and it could not be taken away retrospectively by an Act of Parliament, in this case, the Finance Act, 2000. Since the companies were unable to pass on the burden to the customers, they would have to bear the entire burden themselves, and that too retrospectively, and therefore such a provision violated Article 14 of the Constitution (equality). The revenue authorities, on the other hand, contended that the 2000 Act was not a validating Act, but explanatory in nature in order to clarify and put in proper perspective the legal position as some tribunals had misinterpreted departmental notifications. The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent changes made by Parliament were clarificatory and the companies were not entitled to the credit of duty.
This question came up for discussion in the above mentioned case before their Lordships, and it was held that non-payment of costs, does not entail the dismissal of the suit. Order XVII rule (1) of the CPC provides that the court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Rule (2) of this order provides that in every such case the court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit and shall make such order as to cost occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the court deem fit.
