Karnataka HC on Valuation of Goods and Quantum of Penalty
The Karnataka High Court in Sri Raghavendra Traders v. Government of Karnataka held that disputes related to valuation of goods and quantum of punishment under section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGSTA”) and Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“KGSTA”) form part of factual disputes and no writ petition shall be applicable to decide these matters. Section 129 of CGSTA and KGSTA explains detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. The Court held that matters related to the valuation of goods and quantum of punishment will be subject to appeal to the appellate authority and it is well within their powers to decide on the same.
NCLT on Applicability of IBC on Juristic Person
The National Companies Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi bench has held that Section 29A(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) will only be applicable on natural persons and not juristic persons. A juristic person is an entity other than a natural person, such as a corporate firm which is created as per the provisions of law and recognized as a legal entity having distinct identity, legal personality, duties and rights. Section 29A(d) of IBC talks about the ineligibility of a person to submit a resolution plan under section 29 of IBC, if the person has been convicted for any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more. The NCLT held that since there was no provision for imposition of fine, Section 29A(d) of the IBC cannot be applicable on a juristic person, because a corporate entity cannot be subjected to imprisonment.
SC Imposes Fine on Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Microsoft and Yahoo
The Supreme Court via an order dated May 18, 2018 imposed fine of INR 1 Lakh each on Facebook Ireland, Facebook India, Google India, Google Inc., Microsoft, WhatsApp and Yahoo for failing to abide by the directions issued by the Court in the matter regarding the removal of videos of sexual violence and child pornography from the websites of the abovenamed. . The Court in its earlier order dated April 16, 2018, had asked the parties to brief the Court on the status of progress made pursuant to the recommendations accepted by them before the next hearing. The Court remarked that “none of these entities has filed anything to show us the progress nor any of these entities is ready with any response pursuant to our aforesaid order. We direct these entities to file an affidavit on or before June 15, 2018 giving us the status of progress made.”