Madras High Court
GST Registration And Payment Of Tax After Inspection Is Not Voluntary Conduct: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court stated that GST registration and payment of tax after inspection is not a voluntary conduct.The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “there is a deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering himself under the Act and also issuing receipts as donation to the Trust. Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct.”In this case, the assessee/petitioner is the...
Proviso To S.10A Of IBC Doesn't Bar CIRP Applications Where Default Continues Beyond Moratorium Period: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period. The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for...
Madras High Court Dismisses Netflix India's Application To Reject Suit Filed By Dhanush Against Nayanthara's Documentary
The Madras High Court has dismissed applications filed by Netflix's Indian entity - Los Gatos, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Dhanush's Wunderbar, in connection with alleged copyright infringement by Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others.Justice Abdul Quddhose also informed the parties that he would be hearing the interim injunction application filed by Wunderbar on February 5th, 2025.Dhanush, who produced the movie “Naanum Rowdy Daan” has approached the court claiming that some...
Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Netflix India's Application To Reject Suit Filed By Dhanush Against Nayanthara's Documentary
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on two applications moved by Netflix India to reject the plaint and to revoke the leave to sue granted to Actor Dhanush's Wunderbar films. Wunderbar had sought leave to sue Los Gatos (Netflix's Indian entity) in connection with the copyright infringement case against Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others. Justice Abdul Quddhose reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate Parthasarathy (for Netflix India) and Senior Advocate PS Raman (for...
Award Passed After Inordinate And Unexplained Delay Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts The present petition has been filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against an award passed by the Arbitrator on September 30, 2019. The petitioner submitted that delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside even without going into the...
What Constitutes Valid Service Of Notice U/S 169 Of CGST Act? Madras High Court Clarifies
The Madras High Court interpreted Section 169 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and stated that Section 169 mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials. The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “when...
FAOs And JAOs Have Concurrent Jurisdiction For Assessment, Re-assessment Or Re-Computation U/S 147 Income Tax Act: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently clarified that both the Faceless Assessment Officer and Jurisdictional Assessment Officer have concurrent jurisdiction as far as assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. “As far as the assessment, re-assessment or re-computation in terms of the provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act is concerned, both the FAO as well as the JAO will have concurrent jurisdiction,” the court ruled. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made...
Offence Under PMLA Is Standalone, Can't Have Joint Trial With Predicate Offence Even If Both Are Before Same Court: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has clarified that the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is distinct and different from the trial of the predicate offence and thus the accused cannot seek for a simultaneous or joint trial even if both are pending before the same court. A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that since the procedures contemplated under the PMLA for trial are different, there was no question of joint or simultaneous trial....
Ineligibility Of Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged First Time Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench of of Chief justice Mr. K.R.Shriram and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy has held that the ineligibility of the Arbitrator cannot be challenged for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act when there were enough opportunities to challenge the same in the earlier proceedings. Brief Facts This appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge. An arbitral award dated...
Limitation Period For Challenging Assessment Orders U/S 107 Of GST Act Begins From Date Of Rejection Of Rectification Application: Madras HC
The Madras High Court stated that limitation period for challenging assessment orders under section 107 of GST Act commences from the date of rejection of the rectification application filed under section 161. The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “………the period of limitation for challenging the order of assessment shall start ticking from the date of rejection of the rectification application………...” In the present case, the assessee/petitioner, in response to a show...
Expenses Incurred For Payment Of Foreclosure Premium Of Loan Is Allowable As Business Expenditure U/S 37(1): Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently ruled that the expenditure incurred for payment of foreclosure premium for restructuring loan and obtaining fresh loan at a lower rate of interest is allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.Such ruling came while dealing with a case where scrutiny proceedings were initiated, leading in revisional assessment u/s 263, based on the assumption that assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue Department, and resultant...