AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
The Delhi High Court ruled that an employee cannot be penalised for the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) default of their employer. This decision references Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the employee's protection from penalties in such cases.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a GST notice invoking Section 74 must explicitly state the facts indicating fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. This ruling necessitates clear and specific allegations in notices to ensure compliance with legal standards.
The Madras High Court has set aside a customs adjudication order issued after a lengthy delay of 14 years, ruling it as time-barred under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, citing an unreasonable and arbitrary process.
A chartered accountant has been booked for allegedly issuing fraudulent Form 15CB certificates, leading to foreign remittances amounting to ₹464.8 crore through two suspected shell firms. This action has raised significant concerns over regulatory compliance in financial transactions.
The Delhi High Court has upheld that portal-only service of GST Show Cause Notices cannot suffice for due process, thereby allowing appeals for notices acknowledged in prior communication. This decision emphasizes the importance of proper service methods.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed GST DRC-13 recovery notices against a company, allowing for proceedings only against the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor. This ruling clarifies the liability scope under GST in relation to deceased individuals.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, although questions remain regarding supplier payment verification and protection for bona fide purchasers.
The Gujarat High Court quashed GST cancellation and appellate orders based on AI-generated, non-existent judgments. The ruling mandates that fresh proceedings be conducted in accordance with GST law.
The CAG’s 2026 Performance Audit Report on Project Imports highlights a revenue risk of ₹2,128.58 crore and identifies procedural irregularities worth ₹22,979.33 crore in the Customs Project Imports Scheme. This report raises concerns over compliance and financial oversight.
CESTAT Delhi has ruled that interest on delayed IGST payments on imports cannot be refunded, emphasizing that IGST functions as a tax on supply rather than customs duty. This clarification will have consequential impacts on refund claims.
The CESTAT Delhi has overturned a re-classification of various aluminium products under CTH 8708, asserting that classification should reflect the goods as imported, not their intended use. This ruling clarifies import classifications.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has applied Section 14 principles post-ITC Ltd's customs refund law modification, allowing the exclusion of the qualifying period for appeals. This decision may influence future customs refund claims.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that separate Show Cause Notices (SCNs) maintain their legal identity even when they are based on a common investigation. This ruling allows for appeals on individual SCNs to proceed.