Speaking Order - The Legal Chamber

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...

The Supreme Court held that payment of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act does not absolve the proper officer from passing a reasoned order under Section 129(3). Such an order is mandatory to safeguard the taxpayer’s right to appeal and ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and due process under Article 265 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s ASP Traders, a Karnataka-based dealer, consigned 17,850 kg of dry arceanut to a Delhi-based company. During transit, the goods were transhipped, and seven bags went missing. The vehicle was subsequently detained by the Uttar Pradesh Mobile Squad in Jhansi. A notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, alleging discrepancies including the shortfall in quantity and questioning the existe...

Tag: Speaking Order

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

Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment