AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
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.
The Bombay High Court has stayed a Customs appellate order that directed the absolute confiscation of goods from Raj Grow Impex, which contravened earlier release orders by the court. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to judicial precedents in Customs matters.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that advocates acting as insolvency professionals are liable to GST under the forward charge mechanism, while traditional legal services remain under the reverse charge mechanism.
A recent case digest outlines critical limitations and powers of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263. It clarifies scenarios in which revision orders can be challenged effectively.
India has revised its land-border Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rules to include a 10% non-controlling beneficial ownership test, aimed at reducing approval uncertainties for foreign investors.
The ITAT and High Court have delineated the boundaries of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's revision powers under Section 263. This digest highlights important rulings regarding the validity of revision orders and the reasons they can be challenged.