Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
HC refused interim relief under Section 74 of the W.B.G.S.T./C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, noting alleged suppression of facts to evade tax. The court declined interim protection and directed that Rs. 5,50,62,464, which the appellants/petitioners assert was paid under compulsion but which the Revenue disputes, shall be treated as a deposit and shall abide by the final adjudicatory orders in the writ petition. Observing that over 50% of the tax demand has already been recovered, the court held the Revenue's interest is adequately protected and that the payment exceeds the 10% deposit ordinarily required on appeal, reinforcing treatment as a deposit. The writ petition is listed before the appropriate Bench on 28 November 2025.
HC refused interim relief under Section 74 of the W.B.G.S.T./C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, noting alleged suppression of facts to evade tax. The court declined interim protection and directed that Rs. 5,50,62,464, which the appellants/petitioners assert was paid under compulsion but which the Revenue disputes, shall be treated as a deposit and shall abide by the final adjudicatory orders in the writ petition. Observing that over 50% of the tax demand has already been recovered, the court held the Revenue's interest is adequately protected and that the payment exceeds the 10% deposit ordinarily required on appeal, reinforcing treatment as a deposit. The writ petition is listed before the appropriate Bench on 28 November 2025.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
