Saurabh Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Division-I, Lucknow, whereby a penalty of ₹38,12,904 was imposed upon the petitioner under Section 122(1)(A) of the CGST Act, 2017. The case arose […]
Madras High Court condoned delay in filing an income tax return by a co-operative society, holding that small farmer-members should not suffer due to administrative lapses.
The Court stayed coercive recovery proceedings after noting allegations that adverse findings were based on witness statements without permitting cross-examination. The ruling emphasizes the importance of natural justice in adjudication proceedings.
The Court restrained coercive recovery proceedings after noting allegations that the adjudication order relied heavily on witness statements without permitting cross-examination. The ruling highlights the significance of procedural fairness in adjudication proceedings.
The Court held that a taxpayer who does not respond to a show cause notice cannot later invoke writ jurisdiction alleging procedural violations. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
Tribunal ruled that interest liability extends to the full duty adjudged under Section 28, regardless of whether payment is made through cash or EPCG licence adjustment. The decision clarifies the scope of compensatory interest provisions.
The Supreme Court held that failure to offer fit-out possession within the contractually agreed period entitled homebuyers to terminate the agreement and seek a refund with interest. Consumer fora cannot override express contractual rights.
The Supreme Court held that review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue issues already decided on merits. It found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition.
The Supreme Court ruled that an employee performing managerial and supervisory duties, supported by documentary evidence and job responsibilities, falls outside the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Delhi High Court held that ₹25 lakh paid under a prior agreement to sell was deductible under Section 48(i) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the eventual transfer of the property.
