Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

A truck driver murdered while he was in process of delivering the goods to the destined party has killed in the course of employment. Once relationship between an employee and employer established, then employer cannot deny payment of compensation to

The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries and was awarded pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary damages.

The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Basanta Kumar Shaw v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Commercial Taxes and State Tax, [MAT 976 OF 2022 WITH CAN 1 OF 2022] held that in terms of Rule 86A(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules

The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Chromotolab and Biotech Solutions v. Union of India, [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16308 of 2020] ruled that the date of filing of the application by the assessee on common portal would be treated as

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of 2022-SM] has held that, the appellant is entitled

The Orissa High Court, in the case of M/s Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) and Others, [W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022], asked the appropriate officer to give a chance to the Petitioner to take all necessary steps to revive r

The Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of M/sAbis Export India Private Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh, [WPT No. 100 of 2019], held that the amendment to Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) regarding

Value of Free Diesel filled in vehicles by the Recipient must be subject to GST by adding the free value diesel in the value of the GTA service

THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT merely because a person has consumed alcohol in excess of the limit prescribed under the penal provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it could not be said that he was 'under the influence of the alcohol', and the insuran

Non-compliance of Clauses (3) and (4) of the IRDA Regulation, 2002 precededby unilateral inclusion, and thereafter followed by the execution of the contract,receiving benefits, and repudiation after knowing that it was entered into for aknown fact to