Supreme Court & High Courts
IT Reassessment Notice Received On April 1, 2021, Must Follow New Reassessment Regime: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that an income tax reassessment notice dated and digitally signed on March 31, 2021, cannot be treated as having been issued on that date if it was actually dispatched through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal and reached the assessee only on April 1, 2021. The court ruled that the notice would be deemed to have been issued on April 1, 2021, and the reassessment proceedings must continue under the framework introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. A...
Madras High Court Quashes CBI Case After Bank Accepted IBC Resolution Plan, Issued No Due Certificate
The Madras High Court has held that Union Bank of India ought not to have initiated criminal proceedings against Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited and its directors after accepting the corporate insolvency resolution plan, accepting the settlement amount and issuing a No Due Certificate The court held that the prosecution initiated thereafter amounted to an abuse of the process of law. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan passed the order while quashing criminal proceedings initiated by the...
Technical Jurisdiction Objections Cannot Defeat Merits Of Commercial Disputes Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 2 July held that a party cannot defeat adjudication of a commercial dispute on merits by raising a technical objection that it filed a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before a court without pecuniary jurisdiction. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a writ petition filed by Gulab Chand Jain challenging the transfer of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur's challenge to an arbitral award directing it to pay Rs. 2.32 crore...
Auction Purchaser Can Seek Refund If Material Title Defects Were Not Disclosed: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed Indian Bank to refund the entire auction consideration paid by an auction purchaser, along with stamp duty, registration charges, and 9% simple interest, after holding that he could not be compelled to continue with a purchase clouded by title disputes. The court also set aside the sale certificate and the registered sale deed issued in his favour. A Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that an auction...
Bombay High Court Issues Contempt Notices To Mumbai Collector Tahsildar Over MahaRERA Recovery Warrants
The Bombay High Court on 10 July initiated contempt proceedings against the Collector of Mumbai and Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar after finding prima facie non-compliance with its directions on execution of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) recovery warrants. A Division Bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata issued show-cause notices under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, holding that the Collector failed to comply with the direction to file a personal...
Karnataka High Court Remands Quikr's ₹1.77 Crore Stamp Duty Dispute Over NCLT-Approved Amalgamation
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order directing Quikr India Private Limited, which operates the online classifieds platform Quikr, to pay an additional ₹1.77 crore as stamp duty on a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)-approved scheme of amalgamation. The matter has been remitted to the District Registrar for fresh consideration. Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that, for the purpose of levying stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the NCLT's order approving the amalgamation...
No GST Payable On Machinery Returned For Testing Without Fresh Consideration: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held on 25 June that a company does not incur GST liability when it returns machinery to a seller for testing without any fresh consideration, as the movement does not amount to a taxable supply. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order reducing the penalty imposed on AAM India Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. to Rs.25,000, while directing the Department to refund the remaining amount...
Madras High Court Holds Unreasonable Delay Bars Duty Drawback Recovery, Quashes ₹38.77 Lakh Demand
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that customs authorities cannot recover duty drawback benefits after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, even when the relevant rules do not prescribe a specific limitation period for such recovery. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar quashed the recovery proceedings initiated against A.Kiyasdeen, an exporter for recovery of Rs. 38.77 lakh in duty drawback and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, holding that the proceedings initiated several years after the drawback was...
Individual Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed For MSME Disputes U/S 18 MSMED Act: Himachal Pradesh HC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 7 July held that a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council cannot refer disputes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) to an individual arbitrator and must either decide the dispute itself or refer it to an arbitral institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services. A Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua set aside the ex parte arbitral award passed against Tynor Orthotics Pvt. Ltd. and...
MSME Award Can Be Challenged Without 75% Pre-Deposit if Nullity Is Prima Facie Shown: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a court hearing a challenge to an arbitral award under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ("MSME Act") is not barred from examining a credible, ex facie plea that the award is a nullity merely because the buyer has not deposited 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the Act. Applying this same principle, a Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora set aside an ex parte award directing...
Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Canon India GST Notices, Says Taxpayer Must Reply Before Challenge
The Madras High Court has held that a taxpayer must first respond to a GST show cause notice before challenging the invocation of Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law (which deals with tax demands involving alleged fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement). Justice C. Saravanan dismissed Canon India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petitions challenging the GST DRC-01 show cause notices but granted the company 30 days to file detailed replies. He observed: "The fact that the Petitioner has not...