Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise cannot continue the proceedings for adjudication of the impugned show cause notice, after the lapse of thirteen years.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court observed that there was an unexplained substantial delay in issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 09-11-2017 and thus, is inexcusable in the eyes of law

Invocation of incorrect methodology
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court held that the CBEC circular was not contrary to the intent of the Central Excise Act and Rules. Thus, the show cause notice is not defective and unenforceable. However, the order of the Commissioner regarding the value of the goods sold to the Assessee’s sister concerns is in consonance with the Court’s earlier judgments and CBEC Circular.

Rajasthan High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It suffered from non-application of mind and was in violation of mandatory requirement of section 75 (6) of the CGST Act.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a special leave petition against the impugned judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, whereby, the Court dismissed the

Armed Forces Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of K.R. Shriram and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ. took cognizance of a petition which was filed

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Jasmeet Singh, J. did not interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued by Delhi Police to a restaurant

Karnataka High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of PS Dinesh and Anant Pamana Hegde, JJ. rejected the appeal filed by Commissioner

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., expressed that, merely because there was a delay

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Bishwajit Dubey*, Shatrajit Banerji** and Prafful Goyal***

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Md. Nizamuddin, J. allowed a petition which was filed challenging the impugned assessment order under Section 147 read with

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kumar, CJ and Sameer Kureshi, J. allowed the writ petition and set aside the

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Yashwant Varma, J., held that once a document comes to be duly registered, it becomes a fait accompli. In

Jharkhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ., allowed the petition and directed the respondents

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Securities and Exchange Board of India- Ananta Barua, Whole Time Member, while agreeing with the Enquiry Report, restrained SIC Stocks and Services

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (SAT): The Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala, (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member), while dismissing the

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Navin Chawla, JJ., noted the mandatory condition provided under Section 144B (7) of

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the issue before the Tribunal

Hot Off The PressNews

NHRC, India issued a notice on 24-02-2021 to the Union Ministry of Defence, through its Secretary, to show cause why Rs 5