NCLAT held that the order appointing the Resolution Professional under Section 97 was obtained on the basis of misrepresented and non-existent jurisdictional facts relating to the alleged personal guarantee. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside as void ab initio.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion must be considered while computing timelines under Section 107 of the CGST Act. A GST appeal filed within the extended condonable period cannot be dismissed as time-barred without proper consideration.
The Tribunal held that procurement services provided by a foreign group entity were substantive services rendered on its own account and not intermediary services. As a result, the transaction qualified as import of services and the refund claim was rejected.
The Court clarified that civil actions such as inquiry and provisional attachment can commence even without a registered scheduled offence. Registration of a scheduled offence is required only for prosecution under the PMLA.
The petitioner challenged a common Section 74 notice issued for FY 2018-19 to FY 2021-22. The High Court issued notice and directed that no final order be passed pending further hearing.
The petition challenged a common Section 74 notice and adjudication order spanning FY 2018-19 to FY 2023-24. The High Court stayed the operation of the adjudication order pending further proceedings.
The petition challenged a common Section 74 notice and adjudication order spanning FY 2018-19 to FY 2023-24. The High Court stayed the operation of the adjudication order pending further proceedings.
The petitioner challenged the issuance of one notice for multiple years and questioned the validity of the resulting orders. The High Court stayed the operation of the impugned orders pending further consideration.
The High Court revisited reassessment disputes after the Supreme Court took note of the retrospective insertion of Section 147A. The matters were remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to challenge the amended provision.
The Delhi High Court held that in a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, sensitive classified documents need not be supplied as copies. Inspection of the documents was considered sufficient to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial.
