BACKGROUNDThe Allahabad High Court passed a final judgment dated 19-12-2025. The case-type ("WT") indicates a tax-related writ; the substantive tax issue decided by the High Court is not set out in this order. As the State of Uttar Pradesh is the petitioner before the Supreme Court, the High Court ruling was evidently adverse to the State / in favour of the assessee, prompting this challenge.FACTSThe State of Uttar Pradesh filed this Special Leave Petition against the Allahabad High Court order dated 19-12-2025. The petition came with applications for condonation of delay in refiling / curing defects and for exemption from filing the official translation. The matter was listed for admission on 29-05-2026. No appearance was recorded for the respondents (the assessee). The Court disposed of the admission-stage applications and passed interim directions; no issue was decided on merits.COURT OBSERVATIONS (verbatim)"1. Delay condoned.2. Issue notice, returnable after ten weeks.3. There shall be stay of the impugned order till the next date of hearing."FINAL VERDICTDelay condoned; notice issued returnable after ten weeks; and stay granted on the operation of the impugned Allahabad High Court order until the next date of hearing. The matter remains pending and no finding has been rendered on the merits.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vS Bambino Agro Industries Ltd & Anr. 29-05-2026
BACKGROUNDThe Allahabad High Court passed a final judgment dated 19-12-2025. The case-type ("WT") indicates a tax-related writ; the substantive tax issue decided by the High Court is not set out in this order. As the State of Uttar Pradesh is the petitioner before the Supreme Court, the High Court ruling was evidently adverse to the State / in favour of the assessee, prompting this challenge.FACTSThe State of Uttar Pradesh filed this Special Leave Petition against the Allahabad High Court order dated 19-12-2025. The petition came with applications for condonation of delay in refiling / curing defects and for exemption from filing the official translation. The matter was listed for admission on 29-05-2026. No appearance was recorded for the respondents (the assessee). The Court disposed of the admission-stage applications and passed interim directions; no issue was decided on merits.COURT OBSERVATIONS (verbatim)"1. Delay condoned.2. Issue notice, returnable after ten weeks.3. There shall be stay of the impugned order till the next date of hearing."FINAL VERDICTDelay condoned; notice issued returnable after ten weeks; and stay granted on the operation of the impugned Allahabad High Court order until the next date of hearing. The matter remains pending and no finding has been rendered on the merits.
BACKGROUNDTata Steel Limited filed a Writ Petition (WPT No. 2485/2026) before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which was decided against it vide order dated 23-04-2026. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The core issue revolves around the question of alternative remedy in the context of proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 — a provision dealing with determination of tax not paid or short paid on account of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. CRUCIAL FACTSThe petitioner's senior counsel submitted before the Supreme Court that the identical question of law — i.e., whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 — is already pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025. Given this, the petitioner sought a stay on further proceedings before the lower forum and prayed that this matter be tagged along with the earlier SLP. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"Mr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that identical issue about alternative remedy arising out of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is pending consideration before this Court.""Till next date of hearing, the further proceedings shall remain stayed. The interim order is subject to the Court hearing SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025 being satisfied that the issues in this case are similar to SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025." FINAL VERDICTThe Supreme Court issued notice, directed the matter to be listed along with SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025, and stayed further proceedings till the next date of hearing — subject to the Court being satisfied that the issues in the present case are similar to those in SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025.👐 FLAT (Interim stay granted — conditional; neither a final victory nor a loss for the assessee)
Tata Steel Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. 23-04-2026
BACKGROUNDTata Steel Limited filed a Writ Petition (WPT No. 2485/2026) before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which was decided against it vide order dated 23-04-2026. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The core issue revolves around the question of alternative remedy in the context of proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 — a provision dealing with determination of tax not paid or short paid on account of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. CRUCIAL FACTSThe petitioner's senior counsel submitted before the Supreme Court that the identical question of law — i.e., whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 — is already pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025. Given this, the petitioner sought a stay on further proceedings before the lower forum and prayed that this matter be tagged along with the earlier SLP. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"Mr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that identical issue about alternative remedy arising out of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is pending consideration before this Court.""Till next date of hearing, the further proceedings shall remain stayed. The interim order is subject to the Court hearing SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025 being satisfied that the issues in this case are similar to SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025." FINAL VERDICTThe Supreme Court issued notice, directed the matter to be listed along with SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025, and stayed further proceedings till the next date of hearing — subject to the Court being satisfied that the issues in the present case are similar to those in SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025.👐 FLAT (Interim stay granted — conditional; neither a final victory nor a loss for the assessee)
Case Facts:The department issued two show cause notices raising substantial tax, interest, and penalty demands against the petitioner. The petitioner sought documents relied upon in the notices, but claimed inability to access them as they were uploaded on a different portal. Due to this, no reply was filed and ex parte assessment orders were passed creating liability of about Rs. 159 crore. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition citing availability of alternative remedy under Section 107 requiring pre-deposit. Court Decision:The Court noted the petitioner’s grievance regarding lack of opportunity and financial difficulty in complying with the statutory pre-deposit. It directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3.50 crore within two weeks as a condition for further consideration of the matter. Upon such deposit, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. The Court further ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the assessment orders subject to deposit.
Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax U.P. & Ors. 20-03-2026
Case Facts:The department issued two show cause notices raising substantial tax, interest, and penalty demands against the petitioner. The petitioner sought documents relied upon in the notices, but claimed inability to access them as they were uploaded on a different portal. Due to this, no reply was filed and ex parte assessment orders were passed creating liability of about Rs. 159 crore. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition citing availability of alternative remedy under Section 107 requiring pre-deposit. Court Decision:The Court noted the petitioner’s grievance regarding lack of opportunity and financial difficulty in complying with the statutory pre-deposit. It directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3.50 crore within two weeks as a condition for further consideration of the matter. Upon such deposit, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. The Court further ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the assessment orders subject to deposit.
Facts:The respondent purchasing dealers claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchases made from various sellers. The Assessing Officer disallowed ITC on the ground that several selling dealers were deregistered, had not filed returns, or denied transactions, raising doubts about genuineness. The first Appellate Authority upheld the disallowance. However, the Tribunal and High Court allowed ITC primarily on the basis of invoices and payments through cheques. Court Decision:The Supreme Court held that the burden under Section 70 lies on the purchasing dealer to prove the genuineness of transactions. Mere production of invoices or payment through banking channels is not sufficient. The dealer must establish actual physical movement of goods and provide supporting evidence such as transport details, delivery acknowledgment, and seller details. Since the purchasing dealers failed to discharge this burden, the Court set aside the High Court and Tribunal orders and restored the disallowance of ITC by the Assessing Officer. Cases Referred by Court:• Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala (2009) 19 VST 84 (SC) • Bhagadia Brothers v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) • Madhav Steel Corporation v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) • Shreeji Impex v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi
State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited 13-03-2026
Facts:The respondent purchasing dealers claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchases made from various sellers. The Assessing Officer disallowed ITC on the ground that several selling dealers were deregistered, had not filed returns, or denied transactions, raising doubts about genuineness. The first Appellate Authority upheld the disallowance. However, the Tribunal and High Court allowed ITC primarily on the basis of invoices and payments through cheques. Court Decision:The Supreme Court held that the burden under Section 70 lies on the purchasing dealer to prove the genuineness of transactions. Mere production of invoices or payment through banking channels is not sufficient. The dealer must establish actual physical movement of goods and provide supporting evidence such as transport details, delivery acknowledgment, and seller details. Since the purchasing dealers failed to discharge this burden, the Court set aside the High Court and Tribunal orders and restored the disallowance of ITC by the Assessing Officer. Cases Referred by Court:• Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala (2009) 19 VST 84 (SC) • Bhagadia Brothers v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) • Madhav Steel Corporation v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) • Shreeji Impex v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi
BACKGROUND The assessee had made a statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 for maintaining an appeal before the appellate authority, in which it thereafter succeeded. The assessee then sought refund of the pre-deposit amount. The High Court of Jharkhand, while granting relief, interpreted and applied Section 54 of the Jharkhand GST Act to order the refund. The State of Jharkhand challenged this before the Supreme Court, contending that the refund of statutory pre-deposit in such a case is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and that Section 54 had no application in this context. CRUCIAL COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel that the subject refund was relatable to Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and to that extent, the exercise undertaken by the High Court with regard to Section 54 thereof was unnecessary." FINAL VERDICT The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interpretation of Section 54 as unnecessary in this context, clarified that refund of statutory pre-deposit on success in appeal is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and directed refund of the amount with interest within four weeks. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. ↔️
State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited 09-01-2026
BACKGROUND The assessee had made a statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 for maintaining an appeal before the appellate authority, in which it thereafter succeeded. The assessee then sought refund of the pre-deposit amount. The High Court of Jharkhand, while granting relief, interpreted and applied Section 54 of the Jharkhand GST Act to order the refund. The State of Jharkhand challenged this before the Supreme Court, contending that the refund of statutory pre-deposit in such a case is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and that Section 54 had no application in this context. CRUCIAL COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel that the subject refund was relatable to Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and to that extent, the exercise undertaken by the High Court with regard to Section 54 thereof was unnecessary." FINAL VERDICT The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interpretation of Section 54 as unnecessary in this context, clarified that refund of statutory pre-deposit on success in appeal is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and directed refund of the amount with interest within four weeks. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. ↔️
Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
Commissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi v. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. 09-10-2025
Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
Facts :The petitioner company received a show cause notice under Section 73 CGST Act from State GST authorities for alleged tax shortfall and excess ITC.Subsequently, Central GST authorities conducted a search and issued summons under Section 70 requiring production of documents.The petitioner challenged the summons before Delhi High Court, contending that parallel proceedings on the same subject matter were barred under Section 6(2)(b).The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that summons and investigation are not “proceedings”.Court Decision:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view and dismissed the SLP.It held that issuance of summons under Section 70 is part of inquiry/investigation and cannot be equated with “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b).“Proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b) refer to adjudicatory actions such as assessment, demand, or penalty proceedings under Sections 73 or 74.Summons is only a step to collect evidence and precedes formal proceedings; hence, no bar on parallel inquiry by another authority.The Court interpreted Section 6 within the framework of “single interface” and “cross-empowerment”, holding that intelligence-based enforcement actions can be initiated by both Central and State authorities.Cases Referred:G.K. Trading v. Union of IndiaKuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan v. Directorate General of GST IntelligenceAnurag Suri v. Director General of GST IntelligenceIndo International Tobacco Ltd. v. Vivek PrasadK.T. Saidalavi v. State Tax OfficerRais Khan v. Addl. CommissionerM/s R.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Superintendent, CGSTTvl. Metal Trade Incorporation v. GST Council SecretariatVivek Narsaria v. State of JharkhandStalwart Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of IndiaKundlas Loh Udyog v. State of H.P.Chief Commissioner of CGST v. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd.K.P. Mohammed Salim v. CIT
Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. 06-03-2025
Facts :The petitioner company received a show cause notice under Section 73 CGST Act from State GST authorities for alleged tax shortfall and excess ITC.Subsequently, Central GST authorities conducted a search and issued summons under Section 70 requiring production of documents.The petitioner challenged the summons before Delhi High Court, contending that parallel proceedings on the same subject matter were barred under Section 6(2)(b).The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that summons and investigation are not “proceedings”.Court Decision:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view and dismissed the SLP.It held that issuance of summons under Section 70 is part of inquiry/investigation and cannot be equated with “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b).“Proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b) refer to adjudicatory actions such as assessment, demand, or penalty proceedings under Sections 73 or 74.Summons is only a step to collect evidence and precedes formal proceedings; hence, no bar on parallel inquiry by another authority.The Court interpreted Section 6 within the framework of “single interface” and “cross-empowerment”, holding that intelligence-based enforcement actions can be initiated by both Central and State authorities.Cases Referred:G.K. Trading v. Union of IndiaKuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan v. Directorate General of GST IntelligenceAnurag Suri v. Director General of GST IntelligenceIndo International Tobacco Ltd. v. Vivek PrasadK.T. Saidalavi v. State Tax OfficerRais Khan v. Addl. CommissionerM/s R.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Superintendent, CGSTTvl. Metal Trade Incorporation v. GST Council SecretariatVivek Narsaria v. State of JharkhandStalwart Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of IndiaKundlas Loh Udyog v. State of H.P.Chief Commissioner of CGST v. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd.K.P. Mohammed Salim v. CIT
Court DecisionThe Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.The Court noted that the High Court had quashed the show cause notices seeking recovery of ₹3731 crores from the respondent, holding that:The basic jurisdictional requirements were not attracted for invoking Section 122(1A) and Section 137 of the CGST Act.No principle of vicarious liability could be read into Sections 122 and 137.The respondent was merely an employee and could not be fastened with the liability alleged against the company.The Supreme Court held that it saw no good reason to interfere with the common impugned orders passed by the High Court.However, the Court clarified that the question of law regarding the interpretation of Sections 122(1A) and 137 of the CGST Act was kept open.Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and pending applications were disposed of. Cases Referred by the CourtShantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs. Union of India & Ors., WPL Nos. 30198/2023, 30199/2023, 30200/2023 & 30241/2023 (Bombay High Court, judgment dated 28 March 2024)
Union of India & Ors. vs. Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari & Anr. Etc. 24-01-2025
Court DecisionThe Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.The Court noted that the High Court had quashed the show cause notices seeking recovery of ₹3731 crores from the respondent, holding that:The basic jurisdictional requirements were not attracted for invoking Section 122(1A) and Section 137 of the CGST Act.No principle of vicarious liability could be read into Sections 122 and 137.The respondent was merely an employee and could not be fastened with the liability alleged against the company.The Supreme Court held that it saw no good reason to interfere with the common impugned orders passed by the High Court.However, the Court clarified that the question of law regarding the interpretation of Sections 122(1A) and 137 of the CGST Act was kept open.Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and pending applications were disposed of. Cases Referred by the CourtShantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs. Union of India & Ors., WPL Nos. 30198/2023, 30199/2023, 30200/2023 & 30241/2023 (Bombay High Court, judgment dated 28 March 2024)
Case Facts:The respondent constructed a shopping mall for leasing purposes and paid GST on inputs like materials and services used in construction, accumulating substantial ITC. The department denied ITC relying on Section 17(5)(d), which blocks credit for construction of immovable property. The Orissa High Court read down the provision and allowed ITC, holding denial would defeat GST objectives. The Revenue challenged this before the Supreme Court along with similar matters questioning the constitutional validity of Section 17(5)(c) and (d).Court Decision:The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the CGST Act and held that ITC is a statutory right subject to conditions and restrictions under the Act. Section 17(5)(c) and (d) clearly restrict ITC on construction of immovable property (other than plant and machinery), and such restriction must be interpreted strictly.The Court upheld the validity of the provisions and rejected the interpretation adopted by the High Court. It held that:A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly based on plain language.ITC cannot be claimed contrary to express statutory restrictions.The legislature is competent to restrict ITC and such restriction does not violate constitutional provisions.The expression “plant or machinery” cannot be expansively interpreted to include buildings like malls merely to claim ITC.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that ITC is not available on construction of immovable property used for renting under Section 17(5)(d).Cases Referred by Court:Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of IndiaBharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of IndiaShreya Singhal v. Union of IndiaUnion of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of IndiaR.K. Garg v. Union of IndiaTwyford Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of KeralaNitdip Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd.P. Laxmi Devi v. State of Andhra PradeshIndore Development Authority v. ManoharlalALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax OfficerHari Krishna Bhargav v. Union of IndiaJoseph Shine v. Union of IndiaCommissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co.Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner of CustomsVegetable Products Ltd.R.S. Raghunath v. State of KarnatakaUnion of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.
Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. Vs. Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & Ors. 03-10-2024
Case Facts:The respondent constructed a shopping mall for leasing purposes and paid GST on inputs like materials and services used in construction, accumulating substantial ITC. The department denied ITC relying on Section 17(5)(d), which blocks credit for construction of immovable property. The Orissa High Court read down the provision and allowed ITC, holding denial would defeat GST objectives. The Revenue challenged this before the Supreme Court along with similar matters questioning the constitutional validity of Section 17(5)(c) and (d).Court Decision:The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the CGST Act and held that ITC is a statutory right subject to conditions and restrictions under the Act. Section 17(5)(c) and (d) clearly restrict ITC on construction of immovable property (other than plant and machinery), and such restriction must be interpreted strictly.The Court upheld the validity of the provisions and rejected the interpretation adopted by the High Court. It held that:A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly based on plain language.ITC cannot be claimed contrary to express statutory restrictions.The legislature is competent to restrict ITC and such restriction does not violate constitutional provisions.The expression “plant or machinery” cannot be expansively interpreted to include buildings like malls merely to claim ITC.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that ITC is not available on construction of immovable property used for renting under Section 17(5)(d).Cases Referred by Court:Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of IndiaBharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of IndiaShreya Singhal v. Union of IndiaUnion of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of IndiaR.K. Garg v. Union of IndiaTwyford Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of KeralaNitdip Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd.P. Laxmi Devi v. State of Andhra PradeshIndore Development Authority v. ManoharlalALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax OfficerHari Krishna Bhargav v. Union of IndiaJoseph Shine v. Union of IndiaCommissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co.Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner of CustomsVegetable Products Ltd.R.S. Raghunath v. State of KarnatakaUnion of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.
Facts :The petitioners filed Special Leave Petitions challenging the judgment and order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the High Court at Calcutta. The dispute pertained to tax demand raised against the respondent. The matter was placed before the Supreme Court for admission, including an application for condonation of delay.Court Decision:The Supreme Court condoned the delay but declined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136. The Court noted the facts and circumstances of the case and the relatively low tax demand, and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors. v. Suncraft Energy Private Limited & Ors. 14-12-2023
Facts :The petitioners filed Special Leave Petitions challenging the judgment and order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the High Court at Calcutta. The dispute pertained to tax demand raised against the respondent. The matter was placed before the Supreme Court for admission, including an application for condonation of delay.Court Decision:The Supreme Court condoned the delay but declined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136. The Court noted the facts and circumstances of the case and the relatively low tax demand, and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.
