Parties Cannot Choose Court To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate After Statutory Period Ends: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday held that once the statutory period for making an arbitral award expires, parties cannot rely on party autonomy or institutional arbitration rules to choose the court that will extend an arbitral tribunal's mandate. It held that, beyond the period expressly permitted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, only the court recognised under the statute can extend the tribunal's mandate. Justice Niral R. Mehta delivered the judgment while upholding a...

Taxpayer Cannot Claim Refund After Transitioning VAT Input Tax Credit To GST: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a taxpayer who chooses to carry forward accumulated VAT input tax credit into the GST regime cannot later seek a cash refund of the same credit. Upholding the rejection of a refund claim of ₹18.75 lakh, the court observed that while transitional credit can be used to discharge output tax liability, it cannot be refunded once it has been carried forward into the GST regime. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati...

Earlier Reassessment Regime Applies To Non-Searched Taxpayers In 2021-24 Searches: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that the earlier reassessment regime can apply even where the assessee was not the person searched, provided the reassessment is founded on incriminating material recovered during a search conducted within the statutory transition period. Applying that principle, the court quashed reassessment proceedings against a transporter after holding that the reopening notice had been issued beyond the applicable limitation period. A division bench of Justice A.S....

Gujarat High Court Says It Cannot Tinker With CBDT's Informant Reward Calculation Unless Patently Arbitrary

The Gujarat High Court has recently refused to interfere with the Central Board of Direct Taxes' (CBDT) decision fixing the reward payable to an informant under the 2007 Reward Guidelines. It held that the reward is an ex gratia payment and that the court cannot re-evaluate the methodology adopted by the Full Board unless its determination suffers from manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ...

Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment Over AO Treating Warranty Provision As Unascertained Liability

The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against road construction equipment maker Ammann India Private Limited.It held that the Revenue reopened the assessment by treating the company's scientifically determined warranty provision as an unascertained liability without considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS), or the material already available with the Assessing Officer. A division bench of...

Gujarat High Court Denies SVLDRS Benefit For Unquantified Tax Liability Before 30 June 2019 Cut-Off

The Gujarat High Court on 18 June 2026 held that a taxpayer cannot claim benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) merely on the basis of admitting part of its tax liability during investigation, and that the entire tax liability must be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date of 30 June 2019 for eligibility under the Scheme. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by Planet...

Gujarat High Court Restricts Excise Rebate In Coke Exports, Rejects Moisture Loss Claim

The Gujarat High Court on 19 June held that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 allows rebate only on the quantity of goods actually exported and not on the higher quantity cleared from the factory on payment of excise duty. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Mahashakti Coke, which challenged the denial of rebate on the differential quantity of metallurgical coke. The Court held: “The expression 'duty paid on such...

Corrigendum Cannot Expand Show Cause Notice After Hearing Concludes: Gujarat High Court

On 22 June, the Gujarat High Court held that Customs authorities cannot introduce fresh allegations or evidence through a corrigendum after adjudication proceedings have concluded and the matter has been reserved for final orders. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a writ petition filed by Vidres India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and directed the authorities to pass final orders within six weeks.They emphasised that the department could not improve its...

Commercial Court Cannot Decide Interim Relief Once Design Cancellation Is Pleaded: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on 16 June held that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the injunction application once the defendant raised a plea for cancellation of the registered design as a defence. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray allowed the appeal filed by Satyam Fashion against Meesho Technologies Private Limited and set aside the Surat Commercial Court's order dated 12 September 2025. It observed: “In terms of Section 22(4) of...

Not-Producing Power Of Attorney Is A Curable Defect, Cannot Terminate Arbitration: Gujarat High Court

On 22 June, the Gujarat High Court held that non-production of a Power of Attorney in arbitral proceedings is a curable procedural defect and cannot, by itself, justify rejection of a claim or termination of arbitration proceedings. Justice Niral R. Mehta allowed a writ petition filed by a homebuyer and set aside an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting his claim against Shalin Infrastructure, restoring the arbitral proceedings. The Bench observed: “The jurisdiction vested in an arbitral...

Works Contract Disputes Must Go To Statutory Tribunal, Not Private Arbitration: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on 19 June held that payment disputes arising from agreements which are, in substance, public works contracts cannot be referred to private arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and must instead be adjudicated by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal under the Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992.Justice D.N. Ray dismissed a Section 11 petition filed by Soham Consultancy Services seeking...

Courts Cannot Interfere With NH Act Compensation Award Based On Section 26 RFCTLARR Assessment: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot be interfered with under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the Arbitrator has assessed market value in accordance with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 based on the evidence on record. A Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice...