Latest news with #Section122
Mint
6 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
Supreme Court stays ₹273.5 crore GST notice against Patanjali Ayurved
In a relief to yoga guru Ramdev-founded Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the recovery of a ₹ 273.5 crore goods and services tax (GST) penalty imposed on the consumer goods company by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar issued notices to the Union government and DGGI on Patanjali's appeal, directing that the penalty be stayed until further orders. The court also agreed to examine the Allahabad High Court's ruling that had upheld the levy. The case stems from DGGI receiving information about alleged suspicious tax credit claims and fake invoicing involving companies supplying goods to Patanjali's manufacturing units in Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Maharashtra. Investigators alleged that Patanjali issued invoices without actually supplying goods and had wrongly claimed input tax credit (ITC), amounting to tax evasion. On 19 April 2024, DGGI issued a tax show-cause notice proposing penalties of about ₹ 273.5 crore under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act for alleged offences during the tax period of April 2018 to March 2022. A separate tax demand was raised under Section 74, which deals with recovery of unpaid tax in fraud cases. In January this year, the department dropped the Section 74 tax demand for Patanjali's Uttarakhand unit after scrutiny revealed that the transactions were genuine, sales exceeded purchases, and input tax credit had been properly passed on. Authorities found no substantial reason to hold that tax was evaded or ITC was wrongly availed. However, the department continued with the ₹ 273.5 crore penalty under Section 122, which penalises GST violations such as issuing fake invoices, even if no tax is due. Patanjali challenged the penalty in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that Section 122 penalties were criminal in nature and could only be imposed after a criminal trial, and that the penalties could not stand once the Section 74 proceedings were dropped. On 29 May 2025, the High Court dismissed the plea, ruling that such penalties are civil in nature, can be imposed by GST officers, and deal with violations different from those under Section 74. Patanjali then moved the Supreme Court, arguing it was unfair to continue the penalty when the main tax case had been cancelled, and questioning both the scope of Section 122 and the powers of GST officers to impose such penalties.
Mint
8 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
Supreme Court stays ₹273.5 crore GST notice against Patanjali Ayurved
In a relief to yoga guru Ramdev-founded Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the recovery of a ₹ 273.5 crore goods and services tax (GST) penalty imposed on the consumer goods company by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar issued notices to the Union government and DGGI on Patanjali's appeal, directing that the penalty be stayed until further orders. The court also agreed to examine the Allahabad High Court's ruling that had upheld the levy. The case stems from DGGI receiving information about alleged suspicious tax credit claims and fake invoicing involving companies supplying goods to Patanjali's manufacturing units in Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Maharashtra. Investigators alleged that Patanjali issued invoices without actually supplying goods and had wrongly claimed input tax credit (ITC), amounting to tax evasion. On 19 April 2024, DGGI issued a tax show-cause notice proposing penalties of about ₹ 273.5 crore under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act for alleged offences during the tax period of April 2018 to March 2022. A separate tax demand was raised under Section 74, which deals with recovery of unpaid tax in fraud cases. In January this year, the department dropped the Section 74 tax demand for Patanjali's Uttarakhand unit after scrutiny revealed that the transactions were genuine, sales exceeded purchases, and input tax credit had been properly passed on. Authorities found no substantial reason to hold that tax was evaded or ITC was wrongly availed. However, the department continued with the ₹ 273.5 crore penalty under Section 122, which penalises GST violations such as issuing fake invoices, even if no tax is due. Patanjali challenged the penalty in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that Section 122 penalties were criminal in nature and could only be imposed after a criminal trial, and that the penalties could not stand once the Section 74 proceedings were dropped. On 29 May 2025, the High Court dismissed the plea, ruling that such penalties are civil in nature, can be imposed by GST officers, and deal with violations different from those under Section 74. Patanjali then moved the Supreme Court, arguing it was unfair to continue the penalty when the main tax case had been cancelled, and questioning both the scope of Section 122 and the powers of GST officers to impose such penalties. The apex court has now granted interim relief by staying the show-cause notice until the matter is heard in detail.
Hindustan Times
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Secret recording of conversations of spouses can be used in matrimonial cases: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday held that secretly recorded conversations of spouses are admissible as evidence in matrimonial cases, saying the fact that spouses are snooping on each other is proof the marriage is not going strong and hence can be used in judicial proceedings. Secret recording of conversations of spouses can be used in matrimonial cases: SC A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case. The high court had held that the secret conversations between spouses are protected under Section 122 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used in judicial proceedings. Setting aside the high court order, the bench restored the trial court order and said recorded conversations can be taken note of during the matrimonial proceedings. It asked the family court to proceed with the case after taking judicial note of the recorded conversations. The apex court said the fact that spouses are recording the conversations of each other is a proof in itself that their marriage is not going strong and hence can be used in the judicial proceedings. Section 122 deals with communication during marriage and says that 'no person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married'. The case stems from a Family Court decision in Bathinda that allowed the husband to rely on a compact disc containing recordings of phone calls with his wife to support claims of cruelty. The wife challenged this in the high court, arguing that the recordings were made without her knowledge or consent and violated her fundamental right to privacy. The high court accepted the wife's plea and ruled the evidence inadmissible, stating that surreptitious recording amounted to a clear breach of privacy and was legally unjustified. However, Justice Nagarathna disagreed with this position. 'Some arguments have been made that permitting such evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony and matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore infringing the objective of Section 122 of the Evidence Act. "We don't think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them," she said. The detailed judgement is awaited. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
30-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Trump's team plots plan B for imposing tariffs
President Trump's trade team is readying its plan B. The administration's tariff strategy was undermined when a court this week found it was illegal for Trump to impose sweeping duties by using emergency economic powers. A federal appeals court on Thursday allowed his duties to stay in effect while the administration's appeal moves forward, but U.S. officials are weighing their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs, which he argues will help rebalance trade in America's favor. The potential pivot reflects the challenges to Trump's aggressive trade policy, which relied on a novel interpretation of trade law. Typically, tariffs are imposed using targeted authority delegated to the president by Congress, but Trump's team relied on little-used emergency powers to impose the bulk of his wide-ranging second-term tariffs quickly. With that strategy under threat, the president's team is weighing a twofold response, according to people familiar with the matter. First, the administration is considering a stopgap effort to impose tariffs on swaths of the global economy under a never-before-used provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which includes language allowing for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address trade imbalances with other countries, the people said. That would then buy time for Trump to devise individualized tariffs for each major trading partner under a different provision of the same law, used to counter unfair foreign trade practices. That second step requires a lengthy notification and comment process, but is seen by administration officials as more legally defensible than the tariff policy that was found to be illegal this week. The alternative provision has been used many times in the past, including for Trump's first-term tariffs on China. Peter Navarro, senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, is floating alternative strategies. The conversations remained fluid, and the administration hadn't made a final decision, the people added. The administration could wait to implement any alternative plans after the federal appeals court allowed Trump's emergency tariffs to stay in place during the appeals process. The White House and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative didn't respond to requests for comment. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Thursday that the administration is weighing other options to impose tariffs as it appeals the court rulings, but she didn't give specifics. Peter Navarro, senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, appeared to confirm that the administration is considering a twofold alternative tariff plan, which would first use Section 122 of the 1974 trade law, and then Section 301. 'Those are the kinds of thoughts" the economic team is considering, he said when asked about those provisions on Bloomberg TV. Navarro also suggested that the administration could use the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which has a provision that allows for tariffs on nations that discriminate against America. The U.S. could also expand the use of tariffs imposed citing national-security concerns. All of the options under consideration now were discussed in the early weeks of the administration, but officials opted to instead impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as IEEPA. The law had never been used before to impose tariffs but allowed the administration to move quickly to impose levies on virtually every global trading partner. In its decision Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump's use of IEEPA to address trade deficits. In doing so, the court pointed to Section 122, the measure Trump's team is now weighing as a stopgap policy, saying part of federal law already grants explicit authority to address 'large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." Pivoting to a different tariff authority could pose risks. If the administration moves to use a different law, that could be seen by courts as admitting defeat in ongoing appeals in the IEEPA case. 'The administration could quickly turn to other tariff authorities, but doing so while the ruling is under judicial review could be seen as a lack of confidence in the final decision," said Everett Eissenstat, who served as deputy director of the National Economic Council in Trump's first term. Trump's alternative plan would likely still face legal challenges, said Peter Harrell, who served as senior director for international economics on the Biden administration's National Security Council. But both elements are on firmer legal ground than the IEEPA tariffs, he said. The Court of International Trade 'seemed to indicate that Section 122 is how you'd address a trade deficit," Harrell said. Section 301, he added, has a long case law history, and action under that provision would likely be upheld as long as the Trump administration can point to unfair trade practices from each targeted nation. In all, the plan is 'certainly more defensible than the IEEPA tariffs," he said. Trump's potential alternative tariff plan has an advantage: Using another law to reimpose the tariffs could smooth over any interruptions in tariffs because of the court's ruling, preserving Trump's leverage in ongoing trade talks. In a filing asking for an emergency stay on the Court of International Trade's decision, the administration said the ruling 'jeopardizes ongoing negotiations with dozens of countries by severely constraining the President's leverage and undermining the premise of ongoing negotiations." That appeared to contradict National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who insisted Thursday that trade negotiations will continue unabated and that three deals are close to being completed. Navarro similarly said that 'nothing has really changed." The ruling on Wednesday came days after the president threatened to impose 50% tariffs on the European Union and then quickly pulled back to allow for negotiations until July 9—a deadline now thrown into question. A rise in global stocks supports the EU's argument that tariffs aren't good for anyone, Spanish Minister of Economy Carlos Cuerpo said Thursday. He said the bloc is taking 'a constructive approach to reaching an agreement and, if possible, even reducing barriers" below pretariff dispute levels. Some analysts said the ruling could ease the path for a trade deal between the U.S. and EU by removing, if the decision survives Trump's appeal, a key sticking point from the negotiations. Ignacio García Bercero, a former EU trade official, said that removing the U.S.'s 10% tariff on European imports and the threat of further across-the-board tariffs would allow trade negotiators to focus instead on the U.S.'s sectoral tariffs on such industries as steel and automobiles. Those were implemented on national-security grounds, not using the economic-powers law, and will be unaffected by the continuing court battle. 'If there's a more pragmatic attitude from the United States and also, of course, from the European Union, one would have the opportunity to try to use this to find a more balanced type of agreement that is in the interest of both sides," he said. Write to Gavin Bade at and Kim Mackrael at
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Appeals court reinstates Trump tariffs, markets tumble again
Appeals court reinstates Trump tariffs, markets tumble again originally appeared on TheStreet. An appeals court has temporarily reinstated President Donald Trump's controversial reciprocal tariffs, pausing a lower court order that had struck them down earlier this month. The decision gives the Trump administration more time to appeal while allowing the tariffs to stay in effect during the legal process. The U.S. Court of International Trade had initially ruled against the tariffs, calling them unlawful under existing trade law. But the administration argued it could reimpose the duties using executive authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — the same legal basis used for tariffs during Trump's first term. Goldman Sachs earlier said the White House was likely to seek alternative legal channels to revive the tariffs, including Section 122, which allows temporary levies on countries with large trade surpluses with the U.S. Crypto markets showed reaction to the news. At the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading at $106,138, down 1.4%. Ethereum hovered near $2,649, while XRP held below $2.27. Analysts noted that markets had largely priced in a policy-driven push for tariffs and were waiting for further developments. This is a developing story. Appeals court reinstates Trump tariffs, markets tumble again first appeared on TheStreet on May 29, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on May 29, 2025, where it first appeared. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
