Legal Shots’ Post

When IPC and BNS sections collide... Ever wondered how IPC and BNS sections compare? This table is a hilarious (and accurate!) take on the differences. #IPC #BNS #Humor #Legal

Section 234 Of BNS Issuing or Signing False Certificate. Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. #uswc #falseevidence #legalcertification #lawfulpunishment #legalethics #falsecertificate

📅 #Barristers - looking ahead: You may be subject to future #CPD spot checks. Now’s the time to get your #CPD house in order! Use our latest spot-check insights to strengthen your compliance and professional growth. https://bit.ly/4fWlkkv #CPD #BSB #ProfessionalStandards #BarStandards

Is the power exercised to issue N/N. 10/2019 CT valid? - Severe Implications! (an ALL exclusive suppliers of goods (including TIP FEBB) across the country enjoy the 40L threshold limit?): If it is in my interest, nothing matters! Benefit provided (with conditions and limitations) without exercising a valid jurisdiction is invalid and cannot be claimed in a court of law as well the limitations are inoperative. 3rd Proviso to S.22(1) confers the jurisdiction to enhance (with conditions and limitations) the threshold limit for registration to 40 Lakh (for specific suppliers). S.23 heads as Persons NOT liable for registration and accordingly if you look into the drafting of t... ... ... http://dlvr.it/T90GLB #GST #Articles #TaxLaws #TaxTMI

The recent letter dated 29.12.2021 is superseded by a new directive aimed at expediting the resolution of pending appeals at the levels of CsIT (A/AU) and Addl./Jt. CIT(Appeals). This framework outlines specific criteria for priority/out of turn disposal of appeals, taking into account genuine and exceptional circumstances. These circumstances may be raised by the appellant or referred to by the Assessing Officer/Range Head. The decision-making process involves the consideration of recommendations from jurisdictional Pr.CIT/Pr.CIT(Central)/CIT(IT), which are then reviewed by Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT/DGsIT. The situations eligible for priority disposal include cases with demands exceeding Rs. 1 crore, those accompanied by VIP/PMO references, cases subject to court directives, appeals from senior citizens and super senior citizens, and any other instances of genuine hardship. For appeals within the jurisdiction of faceless CsIT(AU), requests are forwarded to Pr.CCIT(NFAC) for further action. This directive has been approved by the Chairman of CBDT. #cacommunity #cbdt #CIT #incometax #appeals

Even if no reply to Demand Notice was given, it would have not precluded Corporate debtor to bring immediately before Adjudicating Authority to establish a pre-existing dispute – Mr. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New DelhiHon’ble NCLAT held that if the dispute is raised by the CD and if the CD shows the disputed issues of facts which require adjudication by a competent court of law, then Section 9 of IBC would not empower the Adjudicating Authority to take upon itself the task of sifting through the rival contentions raised and to gave a judgement upon it. However, it has to determine whether there truly exist a dispute which may or may not ultimately succeed, but at the stage of consideration of an application under Section 9 IBC the jurisdiction is limited to consideration of existence of a dispute. #ibc2016 #cirp #demandnotice

Even if no reply to Demand Notice was given, it would have not precluded Corporate debtor to bring immediately before Adjudicating Authority to establish a pre-existing dispute – Mr. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New DelhiHon’ble NCLAT held that if the dispute is raised by the CD and if the CD shows the disputed issues of facts which require adjudication by a competent court of law, then Section 9 of IBC would not empower the Adjudicating Authority to take upon itself the task of sifting through the rival contentions raised and to gave a judgement upon it. However, it has to determine whether there truly exist a dispute which may or may not ultimately succeed, but at the stage of consideration of an application under Section 9 IBC the jurisdiction is limited to consideration of existence of a dispute. #ibc2016 #cirp #demandnotice

Even if no reply to Demand Notice was given, it would have not precluded Corporate debtor to bring immediately before Adjudicating Authority to establish a pre-existing dispute – Mr. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New DelhiHon’ble NCLAT held that if the dispute is raised by the CD and if the CD shows the disputed issues of facts which require adjudication by a competent court of law, then Section 9 of IBC would not empower the Adjudicating Authority to take upon itself the task of sifting through the rival contentions raised and to gave a judgement upon it. However, it has to determine whether there truly exist a dispute which may or may not ultimately succeed, but at the stage of consideration of an application under Section 9 IBC the jurisdiction is limited to consideration of existence of a dispute. #ibc2016 #cirp #sec8 #dispute #sec9

The parties have a duty to produce evidence if and when available at the risk of the evidence being disregarded (Rule 172 RoP). That was confirmed by the UPC Court of Appeal in its judgement of 16 September 2024 in ICPillar v ARM: https://lnkd.in/eA9Mzyvb The Court also ruled that under Rule 222 RoP and Article 73(4) UPCA it may of its own motion disregard late filed requests, facts and evidence even if these were not objected to by the other party Furthermore a bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the US does not provide adequate security in UPC proceedings (R.158 RoP). The reason is not solely based on nationality, but on substantive grounds – hard to execute within the UPC territory – this is not contrary to any prohibition of discrimination. For case law on security for costs (Rule 158 RoP): https://lnkd.in/e26c_jSm #upc, #upcnugget

CBIC recently issued Instruction No.01/2024-GST dated 30.5.24 providing guidelines on initiating recovery proceedings under the CGST Act, 2017. Recovery typically commences after three months from demand order service, except in exceptional circumstances like revenue risk or insolvency. The decision for early recovery must be justified and approved by higher authorities to safeguard against arbitrary actions. Recent cases show early recovery initiation, yet high courts emphasize recovery post three-month period unless justified in writing for revenue protection. Notably, instructions do not address recovery post first appeal orders due to pending formation of GSTAT. Stay informed with our detailed alert on this matter. Adv Ankit Kanodia #gst #gstupdates #calcuttahighcourt