This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

Constitution of India 1949

Art 141 :Extension of limitation period – CoronaVirus – Period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. [Art .142 ]

Suo Motu Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (2020)424 ITR 314 (SC)// MANU/SC/0566/2020 ; www.itatonline.org

Goods and Service tax Act , 2017

S.79 : Coercive Recovery of taxes etc during Corona Virus crisis- Orders of the Allahabad and Kerala High Courts directing the authorities to defer coercive recovery of taxes is stayed . [ Art. 226 , 227 ]

UOI v P.D .Sunny & Ors Manu/ SCOR/ 24176/ 2020 ( SC) www.itatonline .org

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

S.83: Provisional Attachment u/s 83 of GST Act – Provisional attachment ceases upon expiry of one year- The action is in violation of the right to carry on business under Article 19(1) & deprivation of property under Article 300A. The Revenue shall pay costs of Rs. 5 Lakh. [ Art .19(1) ]

Amazonite Steel Pvt. Ltd v UOI (2020) (36) G.S.T.L. 184; MANU/ WB/0593/2020 (Cal) (HC) www.itatonline .org Corandum Impex Pvt. Ltd. v UOI (2020) (36) G.S.T.L. 184; MANU/ WB/0593/2020(Cal) (HC) www.itatonline .org Cuprite Marketing Pvt. Ltd v UOI(2020) (36) G.S.T.L. 184; MANU/ WB/0593/2020 (Cal) (HC) www.itatonline .org

Advocates Act 1961

S.7 : Standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates – Professional Ethics –It was the duty of a lawyer to defend no matter what the consequences, and a lawyer who refuses to do so is not following the message of the Gita. Constitution of India , 1949, Art . 22(1), 142 ]

A.S. Mohammed Raf v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors AIR 2011 SC 308

Central Excise Act 1944
S.35C :Appellate Tribunal- Duties -Natural justice – Non reasoned order- Absence of reasons suggestive of order being arbitrary and in breach of principle of natural justice-Order of Tribunal is set aside [ S.35B ]

Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd v. CCES 2011(263) ELT 206 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal –Duties – Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Unaware of date of hearing – Sufficient cause- Ex -pate order on merit can be set aside [ S.254(2) , ITAT Rule 24 Art .226 ]

Rainbow Agri Industries Ltd. v. ITAT (2003) 132 Taxman 752 /(2003) 185 CTR 482 /(2004) 266 ITR 38 (Bom.)(HC)

Central Excise Act , 1944
Appellate Tribunal- Rectification of Mistake – Not referring to the judgments of the Tribunal of which the appellant was relying, is not proper.- Order of Tribunal is set aside .

Stanlek Engineering P. Ltd. v. CEST Mumbai 2008 (229) ELT 61 (Bom)

Advocates act , 1961
S,7 :Professional ethics party cannot conduct case himself without discharging his counsel on record.

Nagappa Mallappa Bandi v. Shivraj AIR 2006 Karnataka 229 Editor Note: The principle will also apply to profession of Chartered Accountant

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)

Residential premises – Professional activities -Housing Co -operative Societies – Apex Court directs that only lawyers, doctors and architects if staying in their residential flat can conduct professional activities in that flat using 25% of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – No other commercial activity allowed in a residential flat-Review petition was dismissed . [ Contempt of Courts Act ,1971 ]

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Noida & Anr. v Mange Ram Sharma (D) through LRs. & Anr. and Dr. Anupama Bisaria & Ors. [I.A Nos.4-6 of 2012 In A No.10535 of 2011 dt 4-05 -2012 (SC)]

Indian Succession Act , 1925

S.213: Statutory tenancy – Can be bequeathed by Will – Unless it is specifically barred by some provision – Powers of Appellate Court – Subsequent events – Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a ‘cautious cognisance’ of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief. [ S. CPC 96, Registration Act , 1908 , S. 5 ]

Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. v. Tehmtan Irani & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 2326