This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of Demonetisation; Freedom of Speech of Ministers; Guidelines to withhold life support of a terminally ill patients; Tussle between Delhi Government and Centre, and more. It also covers reports on Justice SA Nazeer’s retirement; the career trajectory & important decision of Justice CT Ravikumar; Explainers on important law points; five ‘Did You Know’ facts; Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of January; and a throwback from SCC Archives.
The Supreme Court's observation came after the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) had referred to Wikipedia for coming to the conclusion in a case under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Noting that there is no disqualification for a Sikkim man, who marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008, the Supreme Court observed that the discrimination is based on gender.
While MR Shah, J, has struck down the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Nagarathna, J, has called for saving the Explanation to Section 10(26AAA) and has created a stopgap ‘sub-clause (iv)’ till the Union of India makes the requisite amendment to the provision.
The Supreme Court observed that taxation depends upon the language of the charging section and what is brought to tax within the four corners of the charging section.
The Supreme Court was hearing the case where a manufacturer was earlier manufacturing “Spun Line Crown Cork” used for sealing the glass bottles but now with the use of modern technologies, was manufacturing “Double Lip Dry Blend Crowns”, also used for sealing the glass bottles.
“When series of decisions of Constitutional Courts are available then the Principle of Judicial discipline cast a duty on me to follow those and nothing else”, observed the Tribunal.
With 1263 judgments delivered; three Chief Justices of India taking turns to lead the judiciary; a number of judges retiring and a
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of EWS Quota and dissent; Juvenility of Kathua gangrape-murder accused; acquittal of all Chhawla gangrape-murder accused; why Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts were set free, and more. It also covers reports on Justice Chandrachud’s appointment as the 50th CJI and his to-do-list; CJI UU Lalit’s retirement; explainers on important law points; some Never Reported Judgments; and career trajectory and important decision of Justice BR Gavai.
The bench of MR Shah and M.M Sundresh, JJ explained the importance of the words “or otherwise” inserted to Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 1987
Supreme Court: In a case challenging the validity of computation and levy of property tax based on capital value system under the
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited (petitioner) challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 68
“A judicial remedy must be effective, independent and at the same time certain. Certainty of forum would involve unequivocal vesting of jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine the dispute in a named forum.”
Supreme Court: In an important ruling of Goods and Service Tax (GST), the bench of KM Joseph* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has
Karnataka High Court and ITAT committed a “grave error” in holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10B (8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory.
Uttaranchal High Court: The division bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, acting C.J., Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J., held in the writ petition is
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Punjab: Arun Narayan Gupta Chief Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, and Kamal Kishor Yadav, Commissioner of State
Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling: T.G. Venkatesh, Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, and K. Latha, Joint Commissioner
Supreme Court settled the issue of whether “body corporate” is excluded from the definition of “consulting engineer” under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 prior to the amendment in 2005.