Find case law by law, section or issue
A small, checked reference set of 8 real Supreme Court cases on GST, income tax, customs, FEMA, SEBI, Companies Act and IBC, searchable by law area or keyword.
Find case law by law, section or issue
Every case below is real, with the party names, court, date and holding checked before inclusion; the search box filters this fixed set only.
Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India
GST · 2026 INSC 920 (Supreme Court, 2026)
A Section 74 CGST notice cannot extend the limitation period by mechanically reciting "fraud" or "suppression" — the show-cause notice itself must disclose the specific foundational facts establishing fraud or wilful misstatement. A mere GSTR-3B vs 2A/2B mismatch or ITC availed from a cancelled vendor is not, by itself, fraud or suppression.
Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
Income Tax · (2022) 1 SCC 583 (Supreme Court)
Reassessment notices issued under the old Section 148 procedure between 1 April and 30 June 2021 (after the Finance Act 2021 had already introduced the new Section 148A procedure) are to be treated as show-cause notices under the new Section 148A(b) regime, rather than being struck down outright.
Nalin Choksey v. Commissioner of Customs, Kochi
Customs · 2024 INSC 933 (Supreme Court)
A subsequent purchaser of imported goods cannot be treated as the "importer" or "owner" for the purpose of a Section 28 Customs Act duty demand — liability for short-levied/undervalued duty attaches to the actual importer at the time of import, not a later buyer of the goods.
GPE (India) Ltd. v. Twarit Consultancy Services (P) Ltd.
FEMA · Supreme Court, decided 26 August 2025
Prior RBI approval under FEMA is not required to satisfy a domestic or foreign arbitral award — remittance of damages awarded under such an award is a current-account transaction that does not need prior RBI clearance.
SEBI v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth
SEBI · 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 787 (Supreme Court, 11 August 2026)
Mere possession of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) coupled with trading in the company's securities while that information remains undisclosed is sufficient, by itself, to attract the presumption of insider trading — whether the trade actually resulted in profit is irrelevant to establishing the offence.
Shailja Krishna v. Satori Global Limited & Ors.
Companies Act · 2025 INSC 1065 (Supreme Court)
The NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate allegations of fraud, coercion and manipulation where they are integral to a complaint of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 — such allegations are not automatically outside the Tribunal's remit merely because they touch on fraud.
Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Limited
Companies Act · AIR 1965 SC 1535 (Supreme Court)
The foundational test for "oppression" under company law: conduct must be burdensome, harsh and wrongful, involving at least an element of lack of probity or fair dealing affecting a member's rights as a shareholder — mere loss of confidence between majority and minority shareholders is not, by itself, oppression.
Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd.
IBC · (2018) 1 SCC 353 (Supreme Court, decided 21 September 2017)
An operational creditor's Section 9 application must be rejected if the corporate debtor demonstrates a genuine pre-existing dispute (one that is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory) that existed before the Section 8 demand notice was received — the Adjudicating Authority does not need to resolve the dispute itself, only confirm it is real.