Posts

Showing posts from November, 2025

Case Law (SC) – The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 is a replica of the struck down Ordinance; old wine in a new bottle, the wine whets not the judicial palette, but the bottle merely dazzle. The repeated reenactment of the same provisions, which have been struck down by the judiciary, shows that the “form of the administration” is being made “inconsistent” with the spirit of the Constitution.

  Madras Bar Association v. Union Of India and Another [2025 INSC 1330] dated 19.11.2025. ISSUE BEFORE COURT ARE: - i.       Whether Parliament possesses the authority to disregard a judicial pronouncement and to enact a statute in any manner it deems appropriate? ii.                Can the Court compel Parliament to legislate in a particular manner? iii.           Can the constitutionality of legislation be tested on the touchstone of what the Union describes as “abstract principles,” such as separation of powers or judicial independence? iv.             Constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021? DECISION: - “ First issue: 117. Parliament, like every other institution under our constitutional scheme, must operate within the bounds of the Constitution. Its discretion is broad but not absolute. It must respe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Law (SC) – For invocation of extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the department was required to prove deliberate suppression and concealment of the material facts on the part of the assessee to evade the tax liability. In the absence of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, or suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax, the invocation of the extended period of limitation under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is wholly unwarranted.

  Commissioner Of Service Tax v. Elegant Developers [2025 INSC 1299] dated 10.11.2025. ISSUE BEFORE COURT ARE: - i.                 Whether the respondent rendered services falling within the category of ‘ Real Estate Agent ’, taxable under Section 65(105)(v) read with Section 65(88) of the Finance Act, 1994 , during the period from 1st October, 2004 to 31st March, 2007? ii.           Whether the appellant has established that the respondent deliberately suppressed facts, thereby justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994? DECISION: - “ 40. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent was not engaged by the SICCL for any such service. The terms of MoUs (supra) which we have carefully examined, do not indicate that there existed any relationship of principal and agent betwe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Law (SC) – The investigating/prosecuting agency/the police cannot directly summon a lawyer appearing in a case to elicit the details of the case, unless there is something, the I.O has knowledge of, which falls under the exceptions, in which case it has to be specifically mentioned in the summons, which the lawyer summoned can challenge under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2025 & Ors. [2025 INSC 1275] dated 31.10.2025. Issue before Court is: - (i)        When an individual has the association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police directly summon the lawyer for questioning? (ii)         Assuming that the Investigating Agency/ Prosecuting Agency/Police has a case that the role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then should they be directly 4 for short, ‘the BSA’ permitted to summon or should judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criterion of cases?’   Decision: - “ 48. We find the summons issued in the instant case to be illegal and against the provisions of Section 132 insofar as the Advocate has been summoned to know the true details of the facts and circumstances of the case in which he appears for the accused. We a...
Post a Comment
Read more