Insights & Resources

The Delhi High Court in HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax reaffirmed that GST proceedings against a company dissolved due to amalgamation are void ab initio. The Court held that such actions are not curable under section 160 of the CGST Act, nor authorised by section 87. This judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maruti Suzuki, reinforcing the principle that legal proceedings cannot be pursued against non-existent entities.

In M/s Silverline v. State of Bihar, the Patna High Court held that GST appellate authorities must adjudicate appeals on their merits, even in cases of procedural lapses or absence of supporting documents. The Court ruled that dismissal for non-prosecution without a merit-based inquiry violates statutory duty under s. 107 of the Bihar GST Act reinforces the importance of reasoned, fair, and substantive appellate decisions.

The Supreme Court, in Shivappa Reddy v. S. Srinivasan, has reaffirmed that partners retiring from a firm must strictly comply with statutory requirements under the Partnership Act to escape liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court set aside a High Court order quashing proceedings and emphasised that non-compliance with Section 72 obligations leaves retired partners exposed to criminal liability for dishonoured cheques.

In P. Nallammal v. State, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on whether a public servant’s spouse can be convicted for abetting the accumulation of disproportionate assets. While both judges upheld asset attachment and procedural findings, they diverged sharply on the standards required to prove abetment under Section 109 IPC read with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Bombay High Court, in a decisive ruling, upheld the allowability of business expenditure incurred by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. in supporting its distressed subsidiary. The Court reaffirmed that commercial expediency justifies such deductions under Sections 28 and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also clarified that the Assessing Officer has limited jurisdiction under Section 115J, reinforcing the sanctity of audited financials prepared under the Companies Act.

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court quashed the provisional attachment of a bank account under the MGST Act, citing procedural lapses and absence of a reasoned order. The Court reiterated that such coercive powers must be exercised judiciously, based on tangible material, and not on presumptions. This decision reinforces judicial scrutiny of arbitrary use of powers under Section 83 of the GST regime.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied based on notional income or presumed earning capacity. Recognising the economic burden on custodial parents, the Court stressed actual income disclosures and caregiving roles, remanding the matter for a fresh assessment of financial documents.

The Supreme Court, in Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, reinforced the rigid limitation regime under the IBC by holding that appeals to the NCLAT must be filed within the prescribed 30-day window, with only a 15-day grace period allowed. The judgment underscores that even non-parties are bound by the statutory timeline, and tribunals cannot condone delays beyond this 45-day limit, ensuring procedural certainty and speed in insolvency proceedings.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed that accused persons under the PMLA are entitled to access all documents seized or filed with the prosecution, regardless of reliance by the ED. The Court ruled this disclosure is essential to uphold Article 21 and harmonised CrPC procedures with PMLA's special framework, reinforcing procedural fairness even in economic offences involving reverse burden clauses.

Does every procedural lapse under the Income-tax Act deserve a penalty? Not quite. In a notable judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that Section 273B offers a crucial safeguard—reasonable cause can shield genuine transactions from automatic penalty under Section 271E. The Court set aside a penalty where the cash repayment of a loan was made under the financier’s insistence, affirming that law must balance compliance with fairness.

the US Supreme Court has overruled the four-decade-old Chevron doctrine, reasserting that courts—not agencies—hold the ultimate authority to interpret ambiguous statutes. This decision reshapes administrative law, restoring judicial independence under Article III of the US Constitution and carrying persuasive relevance for jurisdictions like India that value a strict separation of powers.

The ITAT Nagpur Bench has held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be retrospectively applied to property transactions based on agreements executed prior to its commencement. In allowing the assessee’s appeal, the Tribunal reaffirmed that taxing provisions must apply prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise, protecting pre-amendment transactions from adverse retrospective tax consequences.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling in Piramal Capital v. 63 Moons offers critical jurisprudential clarity under the IBC. It distinguishes PUFE transactions from fraudulent trading, affirms the finality of CoC-approved resolution plans, and decisively holds that superseded directors have no participatory rights in CIRP. This judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial intervention and strengthens the commercial sanctity of insolvency resolution processes.

This judgment by the Calcutta High Court settles a critical question under FEMA: can compounding be sought after an adjudication order is passed? The Court held that compounding is a pre-adjudication remedy and rejected the petitioner’s attempt to revive the option post-penalty. The decision reinforces the procedural integrity of FEMA and clarifies that contraveners must elect remedies in a time-bound and disciplined manner.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s grant of anticipatory bail to accused persons declared proclaimed offenders for evading summons in a major economic fraud. Reaffirming that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief, the Court held that wilful evasion of judicial process disentitles accused persons from seeking such protection, especially in grave financial crimes involving public interest.

The Singapore High Court recognised an Indian CIRP under the UNCITRAL Model Law. The ruling affirms India’s CIRP as a ‘foreign proceeding’, clarifies COMI principles, and establishes safeguards for Singapore-based creditors, paving the way for more robust cross-border insolvency cooperation.

The Mumbai ITAT ruled that Bay Lines (Mauritius) was not entitled to treaty relief under the India–Mauritius DTAA as its place of effective management (POEM) was in the UAE. The Tribunal also held that its Indian agent did not constitute a dependent PE. This dual ruling clarifies the evidentiary threshold for POEM and reaffirms the independent agent exception under international tax law.

The ITAT Mumbai held that payments made by Deloitte India to a UK-based affiliate for internal branding, technology, and communication services do not qualify as "royalty" under Article 13 of the India–UK DTAA. As there was no transfer of intellectual property, copyright, or commercial exploitation, the tribunal ruled that no TDS obligation arose. This reinforces jurisprudence around intra-network service arrangements and cost-sharing.

The NCLAT has reaffirmed the commercial supremacy of the CoC in insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal clarified that Regulation 39(1A) of the CIRP Regulations limits only the resolution professional, not the CoC, and held that procedural mechanisms like the challenge process are facilitative, not mandatory. This judgment reinforces creditor autonomy and balances procedural compliance with commercial pragmatism.

The Supreme Court has quashed a cheque bounce complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, citing deliberate suppression of critical defence documents by the complainant. The judgment reinforces that criminal prosecution cannot proceed where procedural fairness is compromised. This decision underscores the duty of complainants to disclose all material facts when initiating criminal process.