In a recent ruling The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, has refused to admit an insolvency petition filed against the operator of Legends League Cricket and held that the alleged dues of ₹1.24 crore under the Player Agreement could not be treated as operational debt, pointing to inconsistencies in the contract and ambiguities over liability clauses.

The applicant Shikhar Dhawan had sought initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), claiming unpaid dues of ₹1.24 crore under a Player Agreement.

The applicant argued that Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. had contractually bound itself to pay his full player fee of ₹2.65 crore for participating in the 2024 season of Legends League Cricket. He also pointed out that despite raising a valid invoice and fulfilling his obligations—playing matches and promotional commitments—the company paid him only ₹1.51 crore in partial tranches, leaving an outstanding balance of ₹1.13 crore plus interest at 19.15% per annum.

Dhwan also said that repeated reminders and even a formal demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC were ignored, and the company had admitted its liability in writing but failed to pay.

After concerning the matter, the tribunal observed that the appellant’s agreement execution date was unclear, and the invoice was raised before the agreement date, casting doubt on its genuineness, and no evidence was produced to show Dhawan had fully completed promotional and match-related duties, making the entitlement to the full fee uncertain.

In light of the facts, the tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish the claimed dues as operational debt under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The bench of Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram( judicial member ) and Atul Chaturvedi (Technical member )clarified that Dhawan is free to pursue remedies in civil court or other appropriate forums.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

The Gauhati High Court recently permitted an assessee whose Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns to approach the authorities for restoration upon noting that the delay in filing returns was attributed to a family medical emergency.

Writ petitioner Sanjaiso Halai, the proprietor of M/s Mishmi Takin Enterprise challenged an order dated December 31, 2025 issued in Form GST REG-19 by the Superintendent, Namsai Range, CGST and SGST Department, Arunachal Pradesh.

The impugned order effectively cancelled the petitioner’s GST registration on the ground that he had failed to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months.

The petitioner submitted that he is engaged in the business of executing work contracts and had been complying with the provisions of the GST law by regularly discharging his tax liabilities. However, due to certain medical emergencies in his family and lack of familiarity with the GST compliance framework, he could not file the required GST returns within the stipulated period.

It was further submitted that after receiving a digital show cause notice dated November 15, 2025, the petitioner cleared the outstanding tax liability by depositing ₹2,71,186 towards CGST and SGST dues. He also paid interest amounting to ₹43,374 and late fees of ₹3,500 on February 19, 2026. Following the payment, the petitioner submitted a representation to the GST authorities seeking restoration of his registration.

Advocates Abanso Gamre and Kirmar Ado, appearing for the petitioner contended that several writ petitions involving similar circumstances had previously been disposed of by a coordinate Bench of the High Court by granting liberty to the assessee to approach the authorities for restoration of registration after complying with the statutory requirements.

Counsel specifically referred to the High Court’s decision in Pankaj Mohan vs. Union of India (2025) and contended that in the cited case, the coordinate bench had disposed of the petition in the motion stage itself.

Standing counsel for the GST department did not object to the submission and agreed that similar directions could be issued in the present case.

Justice Anjan Moni Kalita observed that under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, GST registration can be cancelled if a registered person fails to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.

Reference was also made to Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 which prescribes the procedure for cancellation of registration and the circumstances in which proceedings may be dropped upon compliance with pending return filings and payment of dues.

Considering the facts herein and the decision of the coordinate bench in Pankaj Mohan (supra), the Gauhati High Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned CGST authority within fifteen days seeking restoration of the GST registration.

It was further informed that if the petitioner submits an application and complies with the requirements under the CGST Rules, the competent authority shall consider the request and take necessary steps for restoration of the GST registration within forty-five days.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Bengaluru-based e-commerce marketplace Meesho Limited (Formerly known as Meesho Private Limited and Fashnear Technologies Private Limited)has disclosed that it received an Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order raises a tax demand of ₹1,499.73 crore, including interest. The company intended to challenge the order through an appeal.

The order, issued by the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department on March 5, 2026, raises a demand of ₹1,499.73 crore (including interest) following additions and adjustments to the company’s declared income. The company received the order and notice on March 6, 2026.

In its report, Meesho stated that it is currently evaluating the order and does not concur with the observations made by the tax authorities. The company said that it has adequate legal and factual grounds to contest the demand and will file an appeal before the relevant authority. Meesho assured stakeholders that it is taking all necessary steps to protect its interests.

The disclosure also noted that a similar demand order for AY 2022-23 had earlier been challenged before the Karnataka High Court, which granted an interim stay on April 17, 2025. That matter remains pending.

In the disclosure It is quoted as: “Please note that a similar demand order was issued for the previous Assessment Year as well (i.e., 2022-23), which was duly disclosed in detail in the prospectus filed by the Company dated December 5, 2025 (please refer pages 558 and 559 of the prospectus in this regard). As indicated therein, the High Court of Karnataka, by an order dated April 17, 2025, granted an interim stay on such demand notice and the matter is currently pending.”

Meesho clarified that the latest order and demand notice does not have any major adverse impact on its financial position, operations, or other activities.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

A circular issued by the Excise and Taxation Department of Haryana has raised concerns among tax professionals after it directed officers to conduct physical verification of all GST registrations that were automatically approved by the system.

The circular, issued from the department’s head office in Panchkula, instructs field officers to carry out mandatory physical verification (PV) of registrations approved under Rule 9A and Rule 14A. These rules were introduced to allow faster and automated GST registration without much human intervention.

According to the circular, all system-approved registrations must be verified by the jurisdictional tax officers, and the verification status must be updated on the GST portal within the given time limits.

The issue came into public attention after Chartered Accountant Ketan Garg shared the circular on X (formerly Twitter). In his post, he said that the rules were introduced for hassle-free and automated registrations but the new direction for 100% physical verification could defeat that purpose.

Garg also said the move may bring back what many people call “Inspector Raj”, where officers have more direct control in verification process. He expressed concern that it could create possibility of harassment or pressure on businesses, especially small taxpayers.

In the post, he also requested intervention from senior authorities and tagged several officials including Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the Ministry of Finance, the GST Council, CBIC, GSTN and the Haryana Chief Minister’s Office.

The circular also mentions that during scrutiny some taxpayers were incorrectly assigned to wrong jurisdictions. It directs officials to correct such cases by shifting them to the appropriate district or ward, and cases needing higher approval should be sent to the state admin office.

Authorities may want stricter checks to stop fake GST registrations and tax fraud but mandatory physical verification for all system-approved cases could increase compliance burden for businesses.

The circular has now started a discussion among tax professionals about whether such measures may affect the government’s efforts to improve ease of doing business under the GST system.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates