Delhi High Court Refuses Writ Pleas Against GST Order Covering 629 Firms In Fake Invoice Case

The Delhi High Court on 21 August declined to entertain petitions challenging an adjudication order passed against 629 firms and individuals in connection with an alleged large-scale fake invoice racket, holding that disputed factual issues concerning their individual roles should be examined by the statutory Appellate Authority. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain relegated the petitioners to the statutory remedy of appeal, holding that whether their replies to the Show...

Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Unsigned GST Notice And ₹3.13 Lakh Demand Against Mayur Timber

The Rajasthan High Court on 11 August set aside an unsigned Goods and Services Tax (GST) show-cause notice and consequential demand of over Rs. 3.13 lakh raised against Mayur Timber, along with interest of Rs. 4,26,002 and an equivalent penalty. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar held that mere generation of a document on the GST portal or allotment of a reference number cannot replace the mandatory requirement of authentication under Rule 26(3) of the Central...

Delhi High Court Orders Forensic Audit To Trace Alleged Fortis Share Dissipation In Daiichi Arbitration Case

On 31 August, the Delhi High Court ordered a comprehensive forensic audit into the alleged dissipation of assets involving Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL), its former promoters Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, their downstream entities, and 17 banks and financial institutions. Justice Subramonium Prasad directed S Ramanand Aiyar & Co. to reconstruct the chain of transactions involving Fortis shares, identify the persons and entities involved, and examine whether Court orders...

RERA Tribunal Has Inherent Power To Restore Proceedings Dismissed For Default: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has inherent power to restore proceedings dismissed for default, even though such power is not expressly provided under Section 53(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), as the Tribunal is required to be guided by principles of natural justice. Justice N. J. Jamadar, on 22 July, dismissed developer Hubtown Ltd.'s second appeal and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order...

Different Financial Years Cannot Be Clubbed In One Section 73 Show Cause Notice: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 28 August reiterated that demands for different financial years cannot be clubbed in a single show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). A Division Bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta held that the statutory scheme treats each financial year as a separate tax period for assessment and recovery, with separate due dates and limitation periods. It therefore held that different financial years...

Karnataka High Court Allows Villa Buyer To Place RTI Records In Award Challenge Over Occupancy Certificate

The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of...

Executing Court Cannot Reject Award Where Parties Mutually Nominated Arbitrator: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator when the parties themselves had mutually nominated the arbitrator in their agreement. Justice Easwaran set aside an order of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which had dismissed an execution petition filed by Hedge Finance Limited to enforce an arbitral award for Rs. 3.47 lakh with 18% interest against Sangeetha A.V. The...

GST Cannot Be Levied On Penalty Imposed On TASMAC Employee For Stock Shortage: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 14 August held that GST cannot be levied on a penalty imposed on an employee for shortage of liquor stock, observing that such a penalty arising from an employer-employee relationship cannot, by itself, be treated as a supply of service under GST law. A Division Bench comprising Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilip Kumar made the observation while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC)....

Income Tax Act Section 245W Appeal Must Be Filed By AO Not PCIT: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 19 August clarified that an appeal under Section 245W(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be filed by the Assessing Officer (AO), and not by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). Section 245W provides for appeals to the High Court against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in cases covered by the provision. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the...

Rajasthan High Court Holds ₹45,000 Paid To Municipality Cannot Offset Labour Cess Liability Of Hospital

The Rajasthan High Court on 5 August declined to interfere with labour cess recovery proceedings against Saini Multispecialty Hospital, holding that payment of Rs. 45,000 to a municipal body could not by itself discharge the hospital's statutory liability under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar at the Jaipur Bench held that the cess had to be assessed and deposited with the authority prescribed...

Official Liquidator Gets 3 Years From Winding Up Order To File Claim: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 31 August held that a claim instituted by an Official Liquidator under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, in respect of a legally enforceable claim is governed by the three year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reckoned from the date of the winding up order, with the benefit of the additional one year period under Section 458A of the Companies Act. Justice Harisankar V Menon rejected the respondent, Miny Zachariah's objection that...

Delhi High Court Refuses Stay On ITAT Order Directing Release Of ₹17.66 Crore Seized Cash

The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot retain cash seized during a search once the assessment of the searched person is completed and the charge over the cash under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 comes to an end. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while refusing to stay an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order concerning Rs. 17.66 crore seized from lockers of searched persons Shakun Tamang and...