Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of NOC for Ayurvedic College Due to Procedural Irregularities: Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025)

/ Administrative Law, Contract Law, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Promissory Estoppel, Rules of Business, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 17, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 232 Judges: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran Can a state government withdraw a No Objection Certificate (NOC) that it initially granted for the establishment of a private Ayurvedic medical college? This question was at the heart of a recent dispute before the […]

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of NOC for Ayurvedic College Due to Procedural Irregularities: Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Penalty and Interest Under Gujarat Sales Tax Act: State of Gujarat vs. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (2023) INSC 355

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 45, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 47, Interest, Judges, M.R. Shah, Penalty, Tax Law

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Penalty and Interest Under Gujarat Sales Tax Act: State of Gujarat vs. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (2023) INSC 355 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether penalty and interest under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 can be waived based on a taxpayer’s bonafide belief and payment of the principal tax amount. CASE TYPE: Tax

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Penalty and Interest Under Gujarat Sales Tax Act: State of Gujarat vs. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (2023) INSC 355 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty and Interest Under Gujarat Sales Tax Act: State of Gujarat vs. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (2023) INSC 376

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 45, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 47(4A), Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty and Interest Under Gujarat Sales Tax Act: State of Gujarat vs. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (2023) INSC 376 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether mens rea (guilty mind) is necessary for imposing penalty and interest under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. CASE TYPE: Tax Law. Case Name: State of Gujarat and Anr. vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty and Interest Under Gujarat Sales Tax Act: State of Gujarat vs. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (2023) INSC 376 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports: Chowgule & Company Limited vs. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade (04 November 2022)

/ Applicability of Promissory Estoppel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Exim Policy 1988-1991, Exim Policy 1990-1993, Export Incentives, Foreign Trade Policy, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an exporter is entitled to an additional license based on the export of processed iron ore when the export occurred during a period where the policy specifically excluded “Minerals and Ores” from eligibility. CASE TYPE: Foreign Trade Policy/Export Incentives Case

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports: Chowgule & Company Limited vs. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade (04 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Sales Tax Exemption for Manufacturing Units: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (21 January 2022)

/ Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 49(2), Judges, M.R. Shah, Promissory Estoppel, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Sales Tax Exemption for Manufacturing Units: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a manufacturing unit is eligible for sales tax exemption on raw materials when those materials are not directly used by the unit, but are instead transferred to another entity for processing before

Supreme Court Clarifies Sales Tax Exemption for Manufacturing Units: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (21 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Purchase Tax on Essar Steel: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (21 January 2022)

/ Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 45, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 49(2), Judges, M.R. Shah, Promissory Estoppel, Sanjiv Khanna, Tax Exemption, Tax Law

Supreme Court Upholds Purchase Tax on Essar Steel: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an eligible industrial unit is entitled to tax exemptions when it transfers raw materials to another unit for processing, instead of using them directly. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: State of Gujarat

Supreme Court Upholds Purchase Tax on Essar Steel: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (21 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies tax exemptions for manufacturing units: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (21 January 2022)

/ Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 45, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with Section 49(2), Judges, M.R. Shah, Purchase Tax, Sanjiv Khanna, Tax Exemptions, Tax Law

Supreme Court clarifies tax exemptions for manufacturing units: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a manufacturing unit is eligible for tax exemptions on raw materials when those materials are not directly used by the unit but transferred to another entity for processing. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case

Supreme Court clarifies tax exemptions for manufacturing units: State of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (21 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Fairness in Tenders: CIDCO’s Land Allotment Cancellation Overturned (29 November 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Contract Act, Contract Act with Breach of Contract, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 4, Judges, Judicial Review, N. V. Ramana, Principles of Natural Justice, Promissory Estoppel, Surya Kant, Vineet Saran

CIDCO’s Land Allotment Cancellation Overturned: Supreme Court Upholds Fairness in Tenders (29 November 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government body can cancel a land allotment based on technicalities and a change in policy after the allotment process is complete and payments have been made. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Public Procurement, Land Allotment Case Name: The

Supreme Court Upholds Fairness in Tenders: CIDCO’s Land Allotment Cancellation Overturned (29 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. (2020) INSC 895 (1 December 2020)

/ Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948, Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948 with Section 9, Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948 with Section 9A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Legitimate Expectation, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case Date of the Judgment: 1 December 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 895 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J, Indu Malhotra, J. Can a state government renege on its policy promises, especially when businesses have relied on them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. (2020) INSC 895 (1 December 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the applicability of retrospective tax laws and promissory estoppel in excise duty exemptions: Union of India vs. M/s V.V.F Limited (22 April 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Judges, M. R. Shah, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Retrospective Application of Excise Duty Notifications Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 295 Judges: Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai, JJ. (authored by M.R. Shah, J.) Can the government retroactively change tax benefits promised to industries? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in

Supreme Court settles the applicability of retrospective tax laws and promissory estoppel in excise duty exemptions: Union of India vs. M/s V.V.F Limited (22 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Electricity Tariff Concessions: Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (29 January 2016)

/ Arun Mishra, Electricity Law, Electricity Law with Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978, Judges, Prafulla C. Pant, Promissory Estoppel, Ranjan Gogoi, Tariff Rates

Can a government revoke a promised concession on electricity tariffs? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving industrial units in Tamil Nadu. The court held that the principle of promissory estoppel does not prevent the government from withdrawing such concessions. This judgment clarifies the scope of government power over fiscal

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Electricity Tariff Concessions: Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (29 January 2016) Read Post »

Scroll to Top