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...
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. is a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). It is registered as a Government Company under the Companies Act, 1956. It is under the control of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. A dispute had been raised by the Central Government (Ministry of Finance) by issuing show cause notices to the assessee alleging that the Corporation was not entitled to avail/utilize Modvat/Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs whose values stood written off.
From a conjoint reading of Sections 2(34) and 28 of the Act, it is manifest that only such a customs officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and re-assessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been affected, by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act is competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act. Any other reading of Section 28 would render the provisions of Section 2(34) of the Act otiose in as much as the test contemplated under Section 2(34) of the Act is that of specific conferment of such functions.
Foreign exchange –Contravention of provisions of Act–Liable to prosecution as well as penalty by adjudicating officer–Proceeding before adjudicating officer for acts considered offence–Exoneration in adjudication proceedings–No case for criminal proceedings thereafter on same facts–Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, ss. 8, 9, 50, 51, 56– Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal
The SC last week stated that in a case of compensation for the accidental death of a person who is yet to retire from his job, the future salary increments and pension benefits should be computed to arrive at the final award. It quashed the order of the Karnataka HC as “perverse” for not considering the future prospects of the deceased person and reducing the damages. The motor accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 14 lakh to the dependents of the person, aged 53, who died in a road accident. The high court reduced it to Rs 11 lakh.The SC raised the compensation to Rs 18 lakh in the case, K R Madhusudhan vs Administrative Officer.
Delay in filing a first information report (FIR) of an accident is no ground to deny compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Ravi vs Badrinarayan. In this case, an 8-year-old boy was hit by a motor vehicle and he was taken to the hospital by his father and others. The report was filed after three months, as the child suffered severe permanent injuries. He lost control of his kidney function. The motor vehicles tribunal and the Rajasthan high court, however, dismissed the claim for compensation on the ground that the FIR was not filed immediately. Reversing this view, the Supreme Court awarded him Rs 2.5 lakh. It said: “Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR.”
The SC dismissed the appeal of Assessee against the Bombay HC order allowing the customs authorities to charge dues for keeping imported goods in the warehouse beyond the permitted time. The firm had imported capital goods for its unit. The goods were kept in the warehouse under bond. After the expiry of the period, the firm applied for extension of the facility. Meanwhile, the government enlarged the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme to cover agro-based industries. The sugar firm availed of this facility and claimed exemption. The authorities rejected the request. The importer moved the high court, and later appealed to the SC, without success. The SC judgment clarified the benefit of exemption granted under the export promotion scheme would not be available to the firm. It is held that Section 15(1)(b) would be applicable only when the goods are cleared from the warehouse under Section 68 of the Act, i.e., within the initially permitted period or during the permitted extended period. It is trite to say that when the goods are cleared from the warehouse after the expiry of the permitted period or its permitted extension, the goods are deemed to have been improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b) of the Act, with the consequence that the rate of duty has to be computed according to the rate applicable on the date of expiry of the permitted period under Section 61.
The SC held that central excise duty can be levied on furniture permanently fixed to the walls or ground. It set aside the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which took a contrary view. This Mumbai Company was engaged in interior decoration of luxury hotels. It entered into turn-key contracts with its clients and furniture was part of the work contract. When the revenue authorities demanded excise duty, it protested the woodwork was carried out in the premises of the hotels and they were permanent fixtures. They cannot be removed without causing damage to the goods or cannibalisation. When the contention was rejected, the firm moved the tribunal, which accepted its argument. The excise commissioner appealed to the SC. It quashed the tribunal’s order.
GE India Technology Cen. (F) Ltd. v. CIT (Supreme Court) -It was held that the moment a remittance is made to a non resident; obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act does not arise. It arises only when such remittance is a sum chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act under sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act.
Supreme Court: Service Tax on Renting of Immovable Property – Requests High Court to hear and dispose of all writ petitions pending before it as expeditiously as possible since same are listed for final hearing on 15-2-2011
RBF Rig Corporation, Mumbai Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), – Supreme Court – Customs – Refund -Adjudicating Authority cannot permitted to circumvent the order passed by the High Court. High Court directs consideration of refund claim on the basis of essentiality certificate – Adjudicating Authority rejects claim on the ground that assessment not challenged. Article 226 of the Constitution confers powers on the High Court to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. The question, whether any particular relief should be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution, depends on the facts of each case. The guiding principle in all cases is promotion of justice and prevention of injustice. It is not open to the subordinate Tribunal to examine whether a direction issued by the High Court under its writ powers was correct and refuse to carry it out as such amounts to denial of justice and destroys the principle of hierarchy of courts in the administration of justice.
