Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Case Against Supertech Directors Over Hill Town Project

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against directors of real estate company Supertech Limited over allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy linked to its Hill Town project in Sohna, Haryana.Justice Madhu Jain was dealing with three connected petitions arising from an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing over alleged non-delivery of flats, discontinuation of pre-EMI payments and alleged diversion and utilisation of funds...

“Copyright Strikes Have Taken Front Seat Over Personality Rights Cases”: Delhi High Court On Comedian Pulkit Mani's Plea

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that copyright strike disputes are increasingly taking precedence over personality-rights cases. Justice Jyoti Singh remarked, “Personality rights have taken a back seat, copyright strikes have taken a front seat, every day one matter.” The observation came while hearing a suit filed by stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani. He has challenged copyright strikes against his content on his Instagram page @hunnywhoisfunny and alleged an attempt to extract...

Delhi High Court Waives ₹4.5 Lakh Penalty After Finding Service Tax Default Was Bona Fide, Not Deliberate

The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹4.5 lakh penalty imposed on a consultancy firm for non-payment of service tax, holding that the default arose from a bona fide and reasonable belief regarding the taxability of its services and was not a deliberate attempt to evade tax.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora set aside the penalty imposed on Appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and observed,“the non-payment of service tax by the Appellant...

'Classic Case Of Change Of Opinion': Delhi High Court Rejects Reassessment Of NTPC's ₹17.59 Crore Income

The Delhi High Court has rejected the Income Tax Department's appeal challenging the annulment of reassessment proceedings against NTPC Limited, holding that the subsequent Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated the proceedings merely because he disagreed with the view taken by his predecessor.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the reassessment was a "classic case of change of opinion", particularly since the issues forming the basis of reassessment...

Delhi High Court Declines Unconditional Release Of Gold, Cites Dispute Over Oral Show-Cause Notice

The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the unconditional release of 290 grams of gold seized from a passenger at Delhi airport, holding that the absence of a written show-cause notice by itself could not warrant release when the Customs Department specifically claimed that an oral show-cause notice had been issued on the date of seizure.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a petition filed by Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum seeking release of eight gold...

Customs Adjudication Limitation Clock Restarts After Interim Stay Ends: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that where a pending court proceeding and an interim order prevent customs authorities from proceeding with adjudication, the limitation period prescribed under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, is to be reckoned from the date on which the circumstance contemplated under Section 28(9A) ceases to exist.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition challenging a customs adjudication order that...

GST Officer's Competence Can Be Challenged Before Appellate Authority: Delhi High Court Declines Writ

The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a batch of writ petitions challenging GST proceedings and penalty orders. The court held that the petitioners can raise their objections, including the alleged lack of competence of the officers who issued the show-cause notices, before the statutory appellate authority.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the objection regarding the competence of the officers did not constitute a “patent or self-evident absence...

Customs Cannot Indefinitely Retain Seized Goods Merely Because Adjudication Is Pending: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Customs Department cannot retain seized goods indefinitely merely because adjudication proceedings have not been completed.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with two petitions seeking release of gold and gold jewellery detained by Customs at the Delhi airport.Petitioners contended that the goods had remained with Customs for several years without any order being passed and that no Show Cause...

Stamp Duty Authority Need Not Wait For Flat Sales To Assess Development Agreement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that an agreed share of future sale proceeds under a development agreement can be taken into account while determining the market value of an instrument for stamp duty. The stamp authority does not have to wait for the project to be completed or for the flats to be sold before assessing the consideration agreed between the parties. Justice Amit Borkar relied on the court's earlier decision in Kolte Patil to reject the argument that future sale proceeds could not be...

Penalty Under FERA Cannot Be Justified Merely Because It Falls Within Statutory Maximum: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a penalty cannot be justified merely because it falls within the statutory maximum provided under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The authority imposing the penalty must give reasons for the amount imposed and ensure that it is proportionate to the contravention."We are, therefore, of the opinion that merely because the imposed penalty falls within the maximum limit prescribed under Section 50 of the FERA, does not, by itself, validate it. The...

Co-operative Bank Can Initiate Arbitration Without Specific Managing Committee Authorisation: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a co-operative society's failure to produce a Managing Committee resolution before the Arbitrator does not invalidate arbitration proceedings initiated by the society. The court ruled that the requirement under Rule 67(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, is directory and not mandatory“However, I am of the opinion that, though the word 'shall' is used in Rule 67(2) of the 1969 Rules, the provision cannot be construed as mandatory, and it can...

Three-Month Limitation For Consequential Orders Cannot Justify Delayed Vivad Se Vishwas Refunds Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the tax department cannot rely on the three-month time limit for passing a consequential order under the Income-tax Act to justify delaying refunds under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.It held that the department was required to pass the necessary order and issue the refund by July 31, 2021, as prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and directed it to pay interest at 6% per annum on the delayed refund from August 1, 2021 to March 2, 2024.“The...