top of page
Newsletters & Legal Updates
Search
Section 16(2)(c) CGST Held Constitutional — Buyer Denied ITC When Supplier Fails to Pay Tax: Gujarat High Court, Affirmed by Supreme Court
A Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Maruti Enterprise through its Authorized Partner, Jigneshbhai Bharatbhai Tarpara vs. Union of India & Ors. [R/Special Civil Application No. 18080 of 2023 with connected group of petitions], by Common CAV Judgment dated May 1, 2026, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and declined both to strike it down as ultra vires and to read it down. Th
Aug 14
Section 16(2)(c) CGST Act Upheld — ITC Is a Statutory Concession, Not a Vested Right; Purchasing Dealer Must Prove Supplier Paid Tax
The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (Division Bench) in Maruti Enterprise Through Its Authorized Partner, Jigneshbhai Bharatbhai Tarpara v. Union of India & Ors. [R/Special Civil Application No. 18080 of 2023 (lead matter)] dated May 01, 2026 held that Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is neither ultra vires the Constitution of India nor liable to be read down, as the provision is clear, unambiguous and self-explanatory. The Court fur
May 14
Income Tax Department cannot reopen an assessee's assessment under Section 147/148 merely because a third party with whom the assessee had transactions did not cooperate with the investigation
The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat (Division Bench) in M/s. R.D. Diamond v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat [R/Special Civil Application No. 12270 of 2025, 2025:GUJHC:70547-DB] dated December 9, 2025 held that proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated against an assessee merely on the basis of non-cooperation by a third party during investigation and information available on the portal, when the assessee has itself made full and
Apr 30
Delhi High Court - Property bought from crime proceeds BEFORE the PMLA can still be attached under Section 5(1) if the accused CONTINUES to possess or use it after the Act came into force.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (Division Bench) in Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. [ LPA 144/2016 , 2026:DHC:2147-DB ] dated March 16, 2026 held that property purchased from proceeds of crime prior to the coming into force of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can be provisionally attached under Section 5(1) thereof, if the offender continues to remain in possession of, and continues to use, such property even after the PMLA ca
Mar 17
Supreme Court Clarifies: Refund of GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Falls Under Section 107(6), Not Section 54 – High Court's Interpretation Set Aside"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited [ Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2026) @ Diary No. 56452/2025 ] dated January 09, 2026 held that the refund to be made to the Respondent in relation to the statutory pre-deposit made by it for maintaining the appeal, in which it thereafter succeeded, would be under the provisions of Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand Goods an
Feb 22
Supreme Court Confirms: GST Authorities Cannot Seize Cash and Silver During Search – Only Goods Related to Tax Evasion Can Be Seized Under Section 67
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of CGST vs. Deepak Khandelwal [ SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 31886 of 2024 and Others ] [ [2024] 89 GSTL 193 (SC) ] dated August 14, 2024 held that the seizure of cash and silver bars recovered during search was not sustainable as these were not subject matter of supply and evasion of tax. The Court affirmed the Delhi High Court's judgment that the purpose of Section 67 of the CGST Act was not recovery of tax but to empower aut
Feb 21
Supreme Court Rules: IGST Refund on Ocean Freight Must Go to Consumer Welfare Fund, Not Power Company – High Court's Novel Refund Procedure Struck Down
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. Torrent Power Ltd. [ SLP Appeal (C) No. 13084 of 2025 ] dated February 10, 2026 held that where the assessee filed an application for refund of IGST paid on ocean freight under CIF contract and the same was rejected, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. [(2022) 10 SCC 700], since the incidence of tax had been passed on to consumers, in terms of Sections 54(5), 54(8)(e
Feb 20
Gujarat High Court Mandates Release of Seized Assets Following Statutory Lapses by Tax Authorities
The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Reevan Creation vs. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No. 21039 of 2023] dated January 9, 2026 held that since the competent officer failed to issue a notice within six months of seizure as mandated under Section 67(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the provisional attachment of bank accounts exceeded the one-year statutory limit prescribed under Section 83(2), the seized items and bank accounts must be r
Feb 19
Protecting the ‘Online Soul’ of Modern Enterprise: The Landmark Dabur Judgment on Domain Name Fraud and Dynamic Injunctions
INTRODUCTION & HOOK In the high-stakes theater of global commerce, a domain name is no longer a mere technical identifier; it has evolved into the "Online Soul" of a business. As Justice Prathiba M. Singh eloquently noted, a website is the digital equivalent of a physical shop address, serving as the storefront where brand reputation and consumer trust intersect. However, this digital storefront is increasingly targeted by unscrupulous registrants who weaponize infringing dom
Feb 7
Join Our Community for Exclusive Content
bottom of page