Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
SC held that key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including those on minimum age, curtailed tenure, upper age caps, panel selection process, and equivalence of service conditions with civil servants, are unconstitutional. The Court found that Parliament had impermissibly reenacted, in altered form, provisions previously struck down, without curing the constitutional defects, amounting to a legislative override of binding judicial directions. Such measures were held violative of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, judicial independence, and Article 14. SC clarified that while Parliament may enact curative legislation, it cannot disregard or nullify prior judicial pronouncements. The offending provisions were struck down, with protection extended to affected tribunal members whose appointments had been delayed and improperly subjected to the new regime. Petitions were disposed of.
SC held that key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including those on minimum age, curtailed tenure, upper age caps, panel selection process, and equivalence of service conditions with civil servants, are unconstitutional. The Court found that Parliament had impermissibly reenacted, in altered form, provisions previously struck down, without curing the constitutional defects, amounting to a legislative override of binding judicial directions. Such measures were held violative of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, judicial independence, and Article 14. SC clarified that while Parliament may enact curative legislation, it cannot disregard or nullify prior judicial pronouncements. The offending provisions were struck down, with protection extended to affected tribunal members whose appointments had been delayed and improperly subjected to the new regime. Petitions were disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
