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...
Appellants filed writ petition before the High Court for quashing the aforesaid order dated 24th April, 2001 of the appropriate authority rejecting their show cause and deciding to file criminal complaint. However, since the prosecution had already been launched against the appellants, the Division Bench of the High Court directed for treating the writ petition as an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge by order dated 10th October, 2002 dismissed the same and while doing so observed as follows: “In the present case also, it is clearly stipulated in para 1 of the lease deed that the lease was extendable purely at the discretion and option of the Lessee on the second part for a further period of nine years. On a conjoint reading of paras 1 and 12 of the lease deed, it becomes clear that lessor intended the lease to last for 18 years. The lessor could not have refused to renew/extend the lease after first term if the lessee complied with the conditions for renewal/extensions. So in view of explanation to Section 269UA(f)(i) of the Act, the total terms of the lease will be 18 years no matter whether it is for a single term of 18 years or two terms of nine years each or three terms of six years each or six terms of three years each. Whether the subsequent terms are described as extensions or renewals is immaterial for the purpose of Section 269UA(f)(i). If the aggregate of the original term and stiupulated extension/renewal comes to more than 12 years, such a lease will fall under the purview of explanation to Section 269UA(f)(i) of the Act and it will be considered to be a lease for not less than 12 years thereby making the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Act application thereto.”
On a day of charges and rebuttals, Communications Minister Kapil Sibal was rebuked by the Supreme Court Friday for his remarks that the official auditor was utterly erroneous in assessing the loss on award of second generation (2G) telecom spectrum at Rs.1.76 lakh crore, while ordering an unbiased probe.
Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs Stoneman Marble Industries and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) – Apex Court do find some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that a standard formula cannot be laid down for imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the aforenoted provisions of the Act and each case has to be examined on its own facts but when a final fact finding body returns a finding that the facts obtaining in each of the cases before it are similar, and such finding is not questioned, levy of redemption fine or penalty uniformly in all such cases cannot be construed as laying down an absolute formula, which is the case here. We are convinced that the Revenue did not discharge its burden under Section 130A of the Act in as much as it did not specifically challenge the Revenue’s aforestated finding as being perverse. In this view of the matter, the High Court was justified in declining to issue direction to the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 130A of the Act.
This Court has upheld the conclusion of the Tribunal that the physician’s samples have to be valued on pro-rata basis. The Tribunal, while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, had relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut vs. Trinity Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2005 (188) ELT 48, which has been accepted by the department. Therefore, we hold that physician samples have to be valued on pro-rata basis for the relevant period.
The Supreme Court last week settled different views expressed by the Bombay and Karnataka high courts and allowed the appeals of the Commissioner of Income Tax, ruling that interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB. In two appeals by the commissioner, against rulings in favour of Rolta India Ltd and Export Credit Guarantee Corporation, the Supreme Court delivered judgement in favour of the revenue department on the issue which arose, namely, interest under Section 234B can be charged on the tax calculated on book profits under Section 115JA. In other words, advance tax was payable on book profits under Section 115JA. Appeals by Nahar Exports and Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd were dismissed.
The Supreme Court held last week that an arbitrator is bound to give detailed reasons for his award and if he does not do so, the award will be invalid. In this case, State of Uttar Pradesh vs Combined Chemicals Co Ltd, the company agreed to supply zinc sulphate to the state agricultural department. However, when the government received a lower offer, it did not carry forward with the arrangement with Combined Chemicals.
The Supreme Court held recently held in the case of Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. Versus Shakuntala & Ors that the insurance company will be liable to pay compensation for road accident death even if the owner had sold the vehicle so long as his name is the official register. The previous owner might have handed over possession of the vehicle to the buyer, but he and his insurer continued to be liable to pay compensation to third parties if the insurance policy is in his name. In this case, Pushpa vs Shakuntala, the owner sold the truck to another person. But the vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Company in the previous owner’s name. There was an accident killing three persons. Their dependents moved the motor accident claims tribunal against Oriental and the previous owner. The tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh high court held that the previous owner had no liability as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle. They ruled that the new owner alone was liable to pay. The dependents appealed to the Supreme Court. The insurance company argued in the Supreme Court that the liability should entirely be that of the new owner as the old owner had lost control of the vehicle after the sale. Reversing this view, the Supreme Court made the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount.
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Usha Rectifier Corporation challenging the levy of central excise on products which were used for research and development. The company manufactures electronic equipment. It bought components and assembled them for R & D. The company argued that there was no manufacture of any product which was marketable and therefore it was not liable to pay excise duty. It further contended that the equipment were used within the factory and it was not taken out of factory gates. The item was dismantled within the factory itself. Rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court ruled that “even if the equipment were used for captive consumption and within factory premises, considering that they were saleable and marketable, duty was payable on the goods.” Apart from capitalisation of the manufacturing process in the balance sheet, the company’s assertion that the equipment was meant to save foreign exchange by developing indigenous products, was an admission that the goods were marketable. Such products would be “deemed to have been removed from the factory premises for consumption,” the judgment said.
Service providers under licence from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) have to pay service tax and the liability is not that of AAI, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case, Sparkway Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise. AAI had entered into a licence agreement with the firm for collecting airport admission charges on behalf of AAI at Calicut airport. The Central Board of Excise and Customs had clarified in 2004 that services provided at airports have to pay service tax. When the authorities demanded service tax from the firm, it refused to pay arguing that it was not permitted to collect service tax from the public and the duty was on AAI. The latter was the principal service provider and the assessee firm was only a collecting agent. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court stated that according to the licence agreement, the firm was obliged to pay all rates and taxes.
With advocate Prashant Bhushan — facing contempt of court charges for his interview alleging corruption in judiciary — making it clear that he would not tender an apology, the Supreme Court on Thursday decided to proceed with the case on merits.
