Supreme Court
'Timelines To Rectify Bonafide GST Form Errors Must Be Realistic' : Supreme Court Asks CBIC To Re-examine Provisions
The Supreme Court recently underscored the need for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to fix realistic timelines for correcting bonafide errors by the assesses in forms when filing GST returns. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge to the Bombay High Court order which allowed an assesee to rectify its form GSTR-1 after missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act. The order was challenged by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes...
IBC | Supreme Court Accepts Apology Of Tax Authorities For Asking Successful Resolution Applicant To Pay Dues Not Covered By Approved Plan
Giving the benefit of doubt and accepting their unconditional apology, the Supreme Court today disposed of a contempt petition filed against Chhattisgarh tax authorities for raising demand notices against a successful resolution applicant over claims in respect of a period prior to the approval of the resolution plan."we have no hesitation in holding that the demands raised by the respondents/authorities for a period prior to the date on which the learned NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan...
PMLA | Person Need Not Be Named As Accused In Complaint To Retain Seized Property Under Section 8(3) : Supreme Court
While dealing with a challenge to retention of an accused's electronic items, documents, etc. under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Supreme Court recently observed that a person need not be named as an accused in the complaint in order for Section 8(3)(a) (dealing with continuation of retention) to apply. Rather, it is sufficient if a complaint alleging commission of an offense under Section 3 of the Act is pending."clause (a) will apply during the continuation of the proceedings...
IBC | Once Resolution Plan Approved, Dues Not Part Of It Get Extinguished : Supreme Court Rejects Post-Resolution Income Tax Demand
The Supreme Court today (March 20) declined a claim raised by the Income Tax Department to include a tax demand in a Resolution Plan after it was approved by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).Citing the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657, which held that all claims not included in the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka...
International Commercial Arbitration | How To Determine Law Governing Arbitration Agreement? Supreme Court Discusses Tests
In a significant judgment relating to International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court today (March 18) ruled that in the absence of an express law governing the arbitration agreement, the applicable law should be determined based on the parties' intentions, with a strong presumption in favor of the law governing the main contract (lex contractus). The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case where the plea was made for...
No S.138 NI Act Case Against Ex-Director Of Company When Cause Of Action Arose After IBC Moratorium Was Declared: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that if the cause of action for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) has arisen after the declaration of moratorium with respect to the company as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), then the proceedings under S.138 NI Act cannot be continued against the ex-director of the company. The Court reasoned that upon imposition of the moratorium, the board of directors' powers are suspended, and...
Supreme Court Upholds Allahabad HC Decision That Chargers Sold With Cell Phones Cannot Be Taxed Separately Under UP VAT Act 2008
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which observed that the charger sold with a cell phone under the MRP cannot be taxed separately under the UP VAT Act 2008. The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a challenge to the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that a mobile charger contained in a composite package with the cell phone cannot be taxed separately under Entry 28 Part B Schedule II U.P. VAT Act 2008. The...
Supreme Court Wonders Why NCLAT Wrote Long Order On Delay Condonation Application Despite High Pendency
The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), despite having a high pendency of cases, devoted extensive time and effort to writing a 17-page order on a delay condonation application.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that lengthy submissions and pleadings by members of the Bar often contribute to unnecessarily verbose orders.“We wonder why the NCLAT which has a high pendency should devote so much of time and...
IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar Execution Of Penalties Imposed Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court
In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (March 4) ruled that an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not apply to penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”). The Court explained that Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes certain liabilities, such as fines and penalties, from the moratorium's effect. As a result, penalties imposed by Consumer Redressal Forums under the regulatory...
PMLA Review: Supreme Court Lists Pleas Challenging Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Judgment On March 6
The Supreme Court is set to hear on March 6 the review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgement, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).It may be recalled that a bench of Justices Surya Kant, CT Ravikumar (now retired) and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with the matter. However, after the retirement of Justice Ravikumar, a need arose for reconstitution of the bench.The pleas were first listed on August 7, 2024, but the hearing kept...
Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Party : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm."An arbitration agreement does not cease to exist on the death of any party and the arbitration agreement can be enforced by or against the legal representatives of the deceased," the Court stated, referring to the judgment in Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel & Anr., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 667.The bench comprising Justice JB...
