Rajeswari Sengupta Rajeswari Sengupta

Rajeswari Sengupta
India's overzealous anti-dumping response may gradually fuel protectionism
Its liberal use of anti-dumping duties risks turning into protectionism - and may do more harm than good
Bhushan Power and Steel case: A test for India's insolvency regime
In a major reversal, the Supreme Court ruled that the resolution plan for BPSL, approved by the committee of creditors (CoC) and cleared by both the insolvency and the appellate tribunals
Updated On : 19 May 2025 | 11:09 PM IST
India must watch out for GDP growth with third chance at doorstep
Having missed two chances to boost manufacturing, India can't afford to miss the third one now at its doorstep
Updated On : 14 Apr 2025 | 11:09 PM IST
Updated On : 18 Mar 2025 | 3:20 PM IST
Budget 2025: Balancing reforms and fiscal consolidation to revive growth
The two key questions are: What is the diagnosis of the economic slowdown? And what can the Budget do to address it?
Updated On : 20 Jan 2025 | 11:37 PM IST
Rajeswari Sengupta & Anirudh Burman: Ushering in insolvency professionals
Countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada have a well-developed cadre of self-regulated insolvency professionals
Updated On : 20 Nov 2016 | 9:30 AM IST
GDP conundrum: Is India booming?
While CSO insists India is the world's fastest-growing large economy, private economists say the country is struggling to recover from its post-2010 downturn
Updated On : 17 Nov 2016 | 4:19 PM IST
Anirudh Burman & Rajeswari Sengupta: Clear the air before enforcing Bankruptcy Code
Poor regulation of the insolvency professional industry will lead to poor bankruptcy outcomes
Updated On : 09 Oct 2016 | 9:59 PM IST
Pratik Datta & Rajeswari Sengupta: RBI should not regulate asset reconstruction companies
Banking and stressed asset management are two separate businesses
Updated On : 02 Jul 2016 | 10:02 PM IST

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

5 hours ago

• The Hindu

High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.

Business Standard

6 hours ago

• Business Standard

HCs not custodian of revenue department, says SC; stays Bombay HC order

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.

Time of India

6 hours ago

• Time of India

‘High Courts not custodian of revenue': SC stays Bombay HC order blocking Rs 256 crore refund to firm

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department , the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. Live Events The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act , 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.