Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Tenders and procurement

M/S SHANTI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. versus THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.

The term 'previous Financial Year' in r.27(4)(iv) must be understood as the year immediately preceding the financial year in which the auction was held (here 2020-2021); the Tender Committee erred in requiring Income Tax Return for 2021-2022 when statutory filing for that year was not yet due, thereby wrongly rejecting the highest bidder; the High Court's judgment upholding that rejection is quashed and set aside and a fresh auction is directed, with refund (with interest) to the successful bidder.

Source excerpt

  • Interpretation of tender conditions
  • 'previous financial year' under r.27(4)(iv)
  • Income tax return requirement
  • Award and rejection of bids
  • Judicial review of tender processes
  • Public auction of natural resources
Read case analysis
Tax law

VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

The prosecution was quashed because the authorities lodged and continued prosecution in blatant disregard of binding departmental instructions (24.04.2008 circular, Prosecution Manual 2009 and CBDT clarification of 09.09.2019) which, on the facts, required confirmation by ITAT/collegium before initiating prosecution under Section 276C(1); the Settlement Commission had granted immunity from penalty under Section 245D(4) and found no suppression of material facts, and continuation of prosecution thereafter amounted to abuse of process of law; accordingly the appeals were allowed and the prosecu…

Source excerpt

  • Section 276c(1) prosecution
  • Settlement commission immunity (sections 245c, 245d, 245h, 245-i)
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings under section 482 crpc
  • Binding nature of departmental circulars and prosecution guidelines
  • Sanction for prosecution under section 279(1)
Read case analysis
Central goods and services tax act, 2017

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that a summons, search or inquiry for the purpose of gathering information does not constitute 'initiation of any proceedings' under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act; the initiation of proceedings for the purposes of s.6(2)(b) occurs with the issuance of a show cause notice which crystallises the subject matter (liability alleged), and the bar in s.6(2)(b) is attracted only where two proceedings seek to assess or recover an identical or overlapping tax liability arising from the same contravention.

Source excerpt

  • Section 6(2)(b) cgst
  • Section 70 cgst
  • Summons
  • Show cause notice
  • Cross-empowerment
  • Intelligence-based enforcement
Read case analysis
Tax law

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) & OTHERS versus SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LTD. ETC.

By a majority (per Satish Chandra Sharma, J.) Section 153 and its timelines apply to the stage of passing the Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C(1); but the specific non-obstante timelines in Section 144C(4) and Section 144C(13) operate independently and in addition to Section 153, so that where Section 144C applies a final assessment must be passed either within one month after acceptance or expiry of the 30‑day objection period, or (if objections are filed) within the DRP timelines (up to nine months to issue directions) plus one month for the Assessing Officer, and if Section 92C is…

Source excerpt

  • Section 144c
  • Section 153(3)
  • Limitation period
  • Assessment and reassessment
  • Draft assessment order
  • Dispute resolution panel
Read case analysis
Securities law

JAYKISHOR CHATURVEDI & ETC. versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

The adjudication orders dated 28.08.2014, which fixed payment within 45 days, constituted a clear and enforceable demand; having attained finality, liability to pay the penalty revived from the date of adjudication and appellants’ failure to pay within the stipulated 45 days rendered them defaulters under s.220(4) Income Tax Act as applied by s.28A SEBI Act, so interest at 12% p.a. accrues from the expiry of the 45-day compliance period following the adjudication orders and is payable by the appellants.

Source excerpt

  • Interest on penalties
  • Recovery of amounts
  • Adjudication and demand
  • Section 28a sebi act
  • Section 220 income tax act
  • Explanation 4 to s.28a
Read case analysis
Central excise

M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI - II

The Court held that reclassification of Benzene and Toluene could not be sustained where it was based on chemical test reports that were not furnished to the appellant in contravention of Rule 56 and principles of natural justice; and that assessments for January and February 1993 could not be treated as provisional because the mandatory requirements of Rule 9B (a proper officer's written direction or the assessee's written request and execution of a bond) were not complied with; accordingly the CESTAT and lower orders upholding differential duty and provisionality were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Tariff classification
  • Test reports and disclosure
  • Provisional assessment
  • Rule 56 central excise rules, 1944
  • Rule 9b central excise rules, 1944
  • Rule 173b central excise rules, 1944
Read case analysis
Tax law

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus COMBINED TRADERS

Sub-rule (20) of Rule 17 of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 is inconsistent with the Central Registration Rules framed under Section 13(1)(d) of the CST Act because the Central Government has the exclusive rule-making power to prescribe the form and particulars of declarations (Form C) and the State cannot, under Section 13(3), make rules cancelling declarations when the Central rules do not provide for such cancellation; accordingly the State rule is ultra vires.

Source excerpt

  • Rule-making power
  • Ultra vires
  • Cancellation of form c
  • Central vs state rules
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION versus B. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

The plaint was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) because the respondents, being only agreement-holders without privity with the appellant and without possession or a registered sale deed, had no legal right enforceable against the appellant or other third parties; a bare injunction suit by proposed transferees in such circumstances does not disclose a cause of action and is barred by law (Sections 54 and 53-A, Transfer of Property Act); further, the claim of large cash payment warranted notifying tax authorities under Section 269ST procedures.

Source excerpt

  • Rejection of plaint
  • Agreement to sell
  • Order vii rule 11 cpc
  • Section 54 transfer of property act, 1882
  • Section 53-a transfer of property act, 1882
  • Section 269st income tax act, 1961
Read case analysis
Insolvency law

M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED versus PRATISHTHA THAKUR HARITWAL & ORS.

The Court held that the demands raised by the respondents for periods prior to the date on which the NCLT approved the resolution plan were contemptuous because under the law declared in Ghanshyam Mishra all claims not included in an approved resolution plan stand extinguished and cannot be the subject of recovery proceedings; consequently the demand notices and all proceedings pursuant thereto were illegal and are quashed and set aside, although no punitive action was taken against the respondents who tendered unconditional apology.

Source excerpt

  • Resolution plan approval
  • Extinguishment of claims not included in resolution plan
  • Statutory dues
  • Demand notices
  • Binding effect of approved resolution plan
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

RADHIKA AGARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The amendments to the Customs Act (Finance Acts 2012, 2013, 2019) and the provisions of the GST Acts that designate certain offences as cognizable and non-bailable are constitutionally valid; Parliament has competence under Article 246-A to enact ancillary criminal provisions necessary for effective levy/collection of GST; customs officers are not police officers; arrests under Customs Act s.104 and GST Act s.69/132 are permissible only after satisfaction of statutory pre-conditions (authorised officer must have material, record reasons to believe in writing, demonstrate how monetary threshol…

Source excerpt

  • Right to arrest under special statutes
  • Constitutional validity of arrest provisions
  • Applicability of code of criminal procedure
  • Judicial review of arrests
  • Pre-conditions for arrest ('reasons to believe', 'material')
  • Legislative competence under article 246-a
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.