Courts and firms are harmed by AI-generated fake laws and citations. The Bombay HC, ITAT, and Deloitte incidents prove human verification is essential to maintain integrity.
The Guwahati HC granted anticipatory bail to a man accused in a Rs. 199.31 Cr fake ITC conspiracy, ruling that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the main accused was already out on default bail.
Delhi HC rules that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act does not bar an unregistered firm from filing a writ petition to enforce statutory rights, upholding the maintainability of a GST challenge.
MCA has relaxed additional fees for filing the Cost Audit Report (CRA-4) for FY 2024–25, citing delays due to new V3 portal deployment. Filings by 31 December 2025 won’t attract penalties.
Supreme Court held that urgency in intellectual property infringement suits arises from continuing nature of wrong, not from how long infringement has persisted. Delay alone cannot bar exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A. Court restored the suit, clarifying that each act of ongoing infringement creates a fresh cause of action.
The Gauhati High Court granted bail to Mukesh Agarwal, accused of Rs. 15.2 Cr GST evasion, ruling his arrest illegal. The DGGI failed to issue mandatory pre-arrest notice under BNSS (S. 41A CrPC equivalent), violating Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil, confirming procedural compliance is vital even under the special CGST Act.
Auditors Opinion on financial statements is mandatory for GST and Tax Audits for UDIN generation. It clarifies types of modified opinions, reporting requirements, and exclusions.
Summary of notifications & circulars from Income Tax, GST, Customs, DGFT, SEBI, RBI, IBBI, MCA, and SC judgments issued during 20–26 Oct 2025 for compliance reference.
Bombay HC held that clubbing several financial years in a single show cause notice is not permissible under CGST Act, 2017. Each tax period must be assessed separately, making consolidated notices without jurisdiction.
Karnataka High Court ruled that rejecting a compassionate appointment solely because applicant is a married daughter is discriminatory. Court held that marital status is not a valid ground for exclusion under Article 14. It directed Bank to reconsider case based on actual dependency and financial hardship.
