CA Kishore K Pahuja

02/11/2025

https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/gstr-9-annual-return-fy-2024-25-key-change-table-6-reporting.html

16/10/2025

https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/goods-services-tax-appellate-tribunal-gstat-overview.html

03/09/2025

All GST proposals cleared and all changes come into force from September 22. No meeting tomorrow as everything has been agreed upon today itself.

26/08/2025

वसीयत न बनाने की कीमत सिर्फ़ पैसे की नहीं होती—यह रिश्तों की भी होती है।

हम अपनी ज़िंदगी भर मेहनत से संपत्ति बनाते हैं—सही निवेश चुनते हैं, संपत्तियों का प्रबंधन करते हैं और भविष्य की योजना बनाते हैं।
लेकिन यह सब सिर्फ़ एक दस्तावेज़ न होने से बिखर सकता है—वसीयत।

वसीयत न होने पर:

संपत्तियाँ सालों तक फ्रीज़ हो सकती हैं।

परिवार लंबे कानूनी झगड़ों में उलझ जाते हैं।

और अपनों के रिश्ते—भाई-बहन, माता-पिता, बच्चे—टूटने लगते हैं।

जहाँ यादों और साथ का समय होना चाहिए, वहाँ तनाव, चुप्पी और दर्द आ जाता है।
कमी प्यार की नहीं थी—कमी स्पष्टता की थी।

वसीयत मौत के बारे में नहीं है—यह प्यार को बचाने के बारे में है।
यह आपकी आवाज़ है जब आप वहाँ नहीं होंगे, जो कहती है:
“मैंने सब संभाल लिया है—ताकि तुम्हें कुछ के लिए लड़ना न पड़े, बस एक-दूसरे के साथ रहना।”

यह शांति का एक छोटा लेकिन ताकतवर तोहफ़ा है। वसीयत रिश्तों को मज़बूत रखती है।

07/08/2025

11/06/2025

IBBI to set up IP panel for faster appointments from July to December

In order to avoid administrative delays in appointment of insolvency professionals, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) will prepare a common panel for
professionals to be appointed as resolution professionals (RPs), liquidators and share it with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The IBBI is required to recommend the name of an Insolvency Professional (IP) upon receiving a reference from the NCLT or the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

The insolvency regulator has issued guidelines for IPs to be included in the panel including eligibility criteria such as no disciplinary proceeding, valid letter of authorisation for
assignment among others.

11/06/2025

Insolvency board revamps reporting of bankruptcy resolution process to ease compliance burden

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has revamped the reporting and monitoring of corporate bankruptcy proceedings to cut red tape, enable auto-population of electronic forms and ease compliance burden, showed an official order.

IBBI has been taking steps to improve the efficiency of debt resolution, cut down delays, and seamlessly make information about the resolution process available to stakeholders. The government is also building a tech platform that will connect all stakeholders involved in bankruptcy resolution, including tribunals, creditors, and policymakers.

21/03/2025

NCLAT Clarifies Computation Of Limitation Under Section 61 Of IBC When Last Day Falls On A Holiday
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhusan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that for computing the 30 days' period under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), if the last day expires on a day when the office of the NCLAT is closed, that day and any succeeding day on which the NCLAT remains closed shall also be excluded.

The Appellant is a vegetable vendor. He filed the application praying for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the Appeal against the order dated 01.10.2024, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad. He claimed that he became aware of the order only a week after its pronouncement. Due to his lack of legal knowledge and ill health, he approached his counsel on 10.11.2024, and the Appeal was subsequently prepared and e-filed on 15.11.2024.

15/03/2025

Writ against intimation of tax ascertainment under Sec. 73(5) is premature as no SCN was issued: HC
GST | CASE LAW

Summary:
GST : Instant writ petition was to be dismissed as premature since tax intimation issued to petitioner under Section 73(5) was not a final demand, and the petitioner had opportunity to contest it before any further proceedings.
Headnote:
Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Demand - Tax or ITC not involving Fraud - Premature writ petition - Petitioner received an intimation of tax ascertainment under Section 73(5), which required payment of ascertained tax along with interest - Petitioner challenged this intimation, contending that they were not liable to pay tax on royalty - HELD:Said Intimation of tax ascertained under Section 73(5) would reveal that it was only an intimation of ascertained tax with liberty to petitioner to pay along with interest or to file his submission, failing to pay ascertained tax, petitioner would be issued further notice under Section 73(1) and thereafter Competent Authority shall have to pass order under Section 73(9) - Since no show cause notice under Section 73(1) was issued and no order in terms of Section 73(9) was passed, the present writ petition would be premature, hence, instant writ petition was to be rejected [Section 73 of Central goods And Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017][Paras 5 and 6][In favour of revenue]

Key Details:
Court Name : HC
Bench Name : Karnataka High Court
Date of Judgement : 15-01-2025
Counsel Name : BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, K. Hemakumar, Smt. Swati L Kamat
Judge Name : S.G. Pandit
Citation : [2025] 171 taxmann.com 782 (Karnataka)

11/03/2025

CIRP plea u/s 7 rightly rejected as share application money isn’t financial debt without proof of private placement: NCLAT
INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE | CASE LAW

Summary:
IBC : CADR Rules require proof of a private placement offer under section 42 of Companies Act; where appellant infused funds into corporate debtor as share application money but failed to provide evidence of such a private placement offer or a valid agreement regarding allotment of share, Adjudicating Authority's order to reject appellant's section 7 application was to be upheld, as there was no proof to support claim
Headnote:
Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 2014, Companies Act, 2013, Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Section 5(8), read with section 7, of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 2(c)(vii) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 - Corporate insolvency resolution process - Financial debt - Appellant-financial creditor invested funds as share application money to respondent-corporate debtor for allotment of equity shares - However, no shares were allotted by corporate debtor and, it failed to refund share application money - Financial creditor filed a petition under section 7 against corporate debtor for alleged default in repayment of debt - Adjudicating Authority held that share application money for shares that were not allotted could not be deemed to be a financial debt and, therefore, rejected said application - Whether Rule 2 of CADR Rules envisages that only if any amount is received pursuant to any private placement offer made in accordance with provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and, no shares are allotted qua that amount, only then sum becomes a deposit - Held,yes - Whether since no proof of any private placement offer made in accordance with provisions of Companies Act, 2013 had been placed on record by appellant, CADR Rules could not be held to be applicable - Held,yes - Whether since there was no evidence of any valid concluded agreement between parties with respect to allotment of shares, amount advanced by appellant could not be treated as amount in response to a private placement offer -Held,yes - Whether since amount advanced could not be related to section 42 of Companies Act, applicability of section 42(6) could not be pressed - Held, yes - Whether thus, there was no infirmity in impugned order passed by Adjudicating Authority rejecting section 7 application of appellant - Held, yes [Paras 11, 12 and 13]

Key Details:
Court Name : NCLAT
Bench Name : NCLAT - New Delhi
Date of Judgement : 26-11-2024
Counsel Name : Abhishek Arora, Ashish Choudhury
Judge Name : Arun Baroka, Ashok Bhushan, Barun Mitra
Citation : [2025] 172 taxmann.com 182 (NCLAT- New Delhi)

11/03/2025

Issuing final order in Form GST MOV-09 not mandatory when penalty already paid and proceedings have been concluded: HC
GST | CASE LAW

Summary:
GST : Where assessee’s truck carrying consignment was detailed, penalty was paid and truck got released, proceeding under sub-section (3) of section 129 was initiated by notice received by petitioner which happened on detaining truck, petitioner paid penalty and on payment, by operation of sub-section (5) of section 129, proceeding was deemed to be concluded, there was no illegality in not issuing order in Form GST MOV-09
Headnote:
Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Detention seizure of goods and conveyances in transit - Order in Form GST MOV-09 - Payment of penalty and release of goods and vehicle - Truck carrying consignment of petitioner was detained and since there was urgency to conclude consignment, petitioner had paid Rs.5,37,656 and got released truck - However, there was no order made In Form GST MOV-09 within a period of seven days from date of service of notice - Petitioner had filed petition seeking passing of order in Form GST MOV-09, which was rejected vide impugned order - HELD: In Form GST MOV-07 there was reflection of calculation of applicable penalty under section 129(1)(a) - Amount was Rs.5,37,656, which petitioner had paid that - Thus there was a situation where petitioner admitted notice having been served and payment of penalty on calculation made, all done on date of detaining truck - Proceeding under sub-section (3) was initiated by notice, received by petitioner which happened on detaining truck - There was calculation of penalty which was in proceeding commenced by notice - Petitioner paid penalty and on payment, by operation of sub-section (5) of section 129, proceeding was deemed to be concluded - Therefore, there was no illegality in not issuing order in Form GST MOV-09 [Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017][Paras 5 6][In favour of revenue]

Key Details:
Court Name : HC
Bench Name : Orissa High Court
Date of Judgement : 18-02-2025
Counsel Name : A. Kedia, C.R. Das, S. Mishra
Judge Name : Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
Citation : [2025] 172 taxmann.com 101 (Orissa)

07/03/2025

Non-registration of charge u/s 77 of Companies Act, 2013 does not affect creditor’s status as a Secured Creditor: NCLAT
INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE | CASE LAW

Summary:
IBC : Non-registration of charge under section 77 of Companies Act, 2013 will not make a difference in claim of creditor being treated as a Secured Creditor
Headnote:
Companies Act, 2013, Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Section 3(30), read with section 3(4), of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Corporate insolvency resolution process - Secured creditor - Appellant had granted loan to corporate debtor vide agreement and, in case of default in repayment of loan, corporate debtor agreed to transfer four flats in favour of appellant - Later, corporate debtor was admitted into CIRP - Since, corporate debtor defaulted in repayment of loan, appellant filed claim as secured financial creditor before Resolution Professional (RP) - RP admitted appellant’s claim as a home buyer but classified appellant as unsecured financial creditor - Appellant filed an application before NCLT seeking direction against RP to include it as a “Secured Financial Creditor but, NCLT rejected claim of appellant on ground that charge was not registered under section 77 of Companies Act, 2013 - Appellant filed appeal contending that it was a secured creditor - Whether legislature never intended that registration of charge under section 77 of Companies Act, 2013 is sine qua non to qualify as secured creditor - Held, yes - Whether non-registration of charge under section 77 would not make a difference in claim of appellant being treated as a Secured Creditor - Held, yes - Whether since there existed a debt and corporate debtor had secured it by creation of a security interest/charge, appellant was a secured financial creditor - Held, yes - Whether RP was bound to consider a 'Charge' and a creditor with a charge was a secured creditor - Held, yes - Whether since there existed a debt and corporate debtor had secured it by creation of security interest/charge, appellant was a secured financial creditor - Held, yes [Paras 15, 18, 20 and 22]

Key Details:
Court Name : NCLAT
Bench Name : NCLAT - New Delhi
Date of Judgement : 14-02-2025
Counsel Name : Anuj Tiwari, Anurag Anand, Chaitanya Nikte, Chintan Gandhi, Dikshat Mehra, Krishnendu Datta, Ms. Aroshi Pal, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Ms. Soumya Kumar, Mukul Kulhari, Puneet Singh Bindra, Rishabh Gupta, Tishampati Sen
Judge Name : Arun Baroka, Yogesh Khanna
Citation : [2025] 172 taxmann.com 70 (NCLAT- New Delhi)