Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court upheld Section 69 GST arrest powers, requiring recorded reasons, CrPC safeguards, CBIC instructions and limiting arr...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held excise duty paid by buyers formed part of turnover, discussed colourable devices, and distinguished legitim...
Corporate Law : A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not affirm the High Court's reasoning or constitute law under Article 141. The doctrine of...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that summoning hotel booking records and call detail records to prove adultery does not violate privacy, a...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court agreed to examine allegations that bank dues were settled at steep discounts through ARCs, while clarifying that...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Corporate Law : Justice BR Gavai sworn in as India's 52nd Chief Justice. Focus areas include addressing case pendency and improving court infrastr...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court dismissed a miscellaneous application challenging its signed order, holding it not maintainable and imposing ₹2,00...
Income Tax : Supreme Court modified compensation by reassessing a self-employed deceased’s annual income after considering ITRs and business ...
Corporate Law : SC allowed the appeal and granted NDPS bail after holding that a case for bail was made out, subject to Trial Court conditions....
Corporate Law : SC held a Ministers statement binds the Government only if it reflects the Governments view and declined to issue speech guideline...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court granted bail under the PMLA, noting prolonged custody, documentary evidence, delayed trial, parity with co-accused, ...
Corporate Law : The Bill seeks to amend Articles 15 and 16 to allow reservation for backward classes proportionate to their population identified ...
Fema / RBI : RBI directs banks, NBFCs, and other entities to implement Supreme Court’s accessibility guidelines for digital KYC, ensuring inc...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : No restrictions on joint bank accounts or nominations for the queer community, as clarified by the Supreme Court and RBI in August...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
The impugned order also notes that in view of the arbitration agreement between the agent and the Government, all the alleged violations fell within the purview of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore, the respondent could not be held liable for any criminal offence. This observation is against the well settled principle of law that the existence of an arbitration agreement cannot take the criminal acts out of the jurisdiction of the courts of law.
UOI vs. Vodafone International Holding (Supreme Court) (Review Petition) -Union of India filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking a review of its judgement in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI in which it held that Vodafone was not liable to pay capital gains on the transfer of shares. HELD by the Supreme Court dismissing the review petition: We have carefully gone through the review petition filed by the Union of India on 17th February, 2012. We find no merit in the review petition. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Section 146(2)(c) of the Customs Act refers to the appearance by a legal practitioner who is entitled to practice as such in accordance with law. Section 129(6) places a restriction, which is reasonable and valid restriction, as held by us above. Thus, the provisions of Section 146A of the Act would have to be read in conjunction with and harmoniously to Section 129(6) of the Customs Act and the person who earns a disqualification under this provision cannot derive any extra benefit -contrary to Section 129(6) of the Customs Act from the reading of Section 146A of the Customs Act.
SC held that was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of Shri Harishankar (father) to give his share in the joint family property to the appellant (Son who taken care of him). Any person of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children from his/her share in the property. The bench said that in the present case the evidence clearly proved that Harishankar had willed the property to Mahesh Kumar instead of the other two sons as the former along with his wife and kids had taken care of the aged parents till their death.
High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. We say so for the reason, that, whether a sale originating in a State is an inter-state sale or not is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the authorities under the Act, since it involves the application of the provisions of Sections 3, 5, 6 and 9(i) of the Act to the facts established and hence, it will be a mixed question of law and fact. The facts requires to be brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority by the appellants and it is for the assessing authority to come to a conclusion, based on those facts whether a particular transaction is intra-state sales which is exigible to the taxes under the VAT Act or inter-state sales, as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act read with Section 6 of the charging provisions therein. It is after such adjudication, the matter can travel from one stage to the other as provided under the Act.
The appellant herein was working as sub-ordinate Judge in Garhwa, Jharkhand when an order was issued by the Governor of Jharkhand removing him from service by an order issued on 31.07.2003 on the basis of a resolution of the Full Court of the High Court of Jharkhand recommending his removal from service. The Inspecting Judge inspected the records of the Civil Court and submitted a confidential report to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court that the appellant did not use to prepare judgments on his own, rather he used to get it prepared through some body else before delivering the judgments.
SC Bench warned the Union government and its departments that bureaucratic delays could not be cited as an excuse or a ground for filing appeals beyond the period of limitation of 90 days and also said that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the government. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
It was held by Honorable SC that merely because assessee, may be, by mistake, paid duty on goods which were exempted from such payment, did not mean that goods would become goods liable for duty under Act and it was Further held that merely because assessee had not claimed any refund on duty paid by him would not come in way of claiming benefit of Notification.
In Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. (Supra), the issue before this Court was whether the products manufactured by the assessee would fall under Sub-Heading 3003.30 as medicament or under Chapter 33 as cosmetics. The assessee contended that each of the products was having ayurvedic medicinal herbs in it and even the labels on these products claim specifically the medicinal properties of the product. The assessee further urged that even if the user of product leads to improvement in appearance of a person that by itself cannot bring it into the category of “cosmetics” if otherwise the product is having a medicinal value and is marketed as such.
Income Tax Department filed an appeal u/s 260A in 2006 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. High Court, relying on Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Income Tax Department challenged the decision on the ground that para 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 made it clear that it would apply only to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and not to appeals filed earlier.
