Tag: Compliance

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

The Supreme Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, finding the delayed payment of dues, while a violation, was not wilful. It reinforced that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate new claims like pension, which were not part of the original decree. The Court, however, awarded compensatory costs for the protracted litigation. Facts Of The Case: A.K. Jayaprakash, a manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd., was dismissed from service in 1985 on grounds of alleged irregularities in sanctioning loans and delays in reporting. He challenged this dismissal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initially set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. This decision was repeatedly challenged by the Bank, first in the Madras Hi...
Read More
Supreme Court Says Export Incentives Can’t Be Rejected on Technicalities :Substance Over Form
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says Export Incentives Can’t Be Rejected on Technicalities :Substance Over Form

The Supreme Court held that an inadvertent procedural error in shipping bills, duly corrected under Section 149 of the Customs Act, cannot extinguish an exporter's substantive right to claim benefits under the MEIS scheme. The Court emphasized that beneficial export promotion policies must be construed liberally, and administrative rigidity cannot override statutory entitlements. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an exporter of corn starch, filed 54 shipping bills electronically through a customs broker for exports made between July and October 2017. The broker inadvertently failed to change the default declaration for claiming incentives under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) from “No” to “Yes”. This clerical error prevented the automatic transmission of the bill...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute the "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). The bar against parallel proceedings is triggered only upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, which formally crystallizes the subject matter and commences adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd., a company providing security services, was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the State GST authority (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This notice raised a tax demand for the period April 2020-March 2021 on grounds of under-declared tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, on 16.01.2025, the Central GST authority (Respondent No. 1) conducted ...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings

The Supreme Court upheld the 2025 EIA Notification, ruling that General Conditions under the 2006 Notification never applied to building and township projects. It affirmed that State-level expert bodies (SEIAA) are competent to appraise such projects. However, the exemption for industrial and educational constructions was struck down as arbitrary. Facts Of The Case: The writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of the notification dated 29th January 2025 and an Office Memorandum dated 30th January 2025, both issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The petitioner, an environmental organization, argued that the new notification fundamentally diluted the environmental regulatory regime established by the original 2006 EIA Notification. The ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...
Read More