Ranjit Mishra And Associates

25/01/2026

01/08/2025

औक़ात नहीं है आराध्य पर सवाल करूँ,
श्रद्धा ही मेरा धर्म है, वही मैं पाल लूँ।
पीड़ा जो मिली है, वो भी प्रसाद समझूँ,
कर्मों का लेखा है, कैसे उसे न मान लूँ।

हर आँसू में उसकी मर्जी देखी है मैंने,
हर चोट में छुपी शिक्षा सीखी है मैंने।
अगर दुख आया है, तो पाप मेरे ही होंगे,
वो न्याय करता है — यही विश्वास संजोए हूँ मैं।

17/07/2025

छतरियाँ हटा के मिलिए इनसे,
ये जो बूँदें हैं, बहुत दूर से आईं हैं।
हर बूँद में छुपी है कोई दुआ सी,
ये बारिश नहीं, कुछ बातें सुनाने आईं हैं।

07/05/2025

ऑपरेशन सिंदूर – जब आसमान से बरसी आग और वीरता ने रचा इतिहास!
जय हिन्द, जय भारत!
#देश_के_वीर

23/04/2025

23/02/2025

The Landmark Judgment That Redefined “Industry” in India ⚖️

Can your organization be classified as an “Industry” under labour laws? 🤔

The Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) case is one of the most significant rulings in Indian labour law history. This Supreme Court judgment expanded the scope of the term “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ensuring better protection of workers’ rights across various sectors.

🔍 The Issue: A Confusion in Definition

Before this case, there was widespread ambiguity regarding what constituted an “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Many organizations, including government bodies, hospitals, and educational institutions, claimed exemption from labour laws, arguing that they were not “Industries.”

⚖️ Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision

The Supreme Court applied the Triple Test to define “Industry”:
✅ Systematic and organized activity
✅ Engagement of workers for hire
✅ Production or distribution of goods/services

If an entity met these criteria, it would be classified as an “Industry” regardless of whether it was a private or government institution.

🔹 Impact of the Judgment

✔️ Public sector undertakings, educational institutions, hospitals, research organizations, and even clubs were brought under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
✔️ Labour rights were strengthened, ensuring fair wages, job security, and access to dispute resolution mechanisms.
✔️ Industrial tribunals were given a wider scope to resolve employment-related disputes.

💡 Why Does This Judgment Matter Today?

Even today, organizations often debate whether they fall under the category of “Industry” and if labour laws apply to them. This judgment set a precedent that continues to influence workplace regulations in India.

📌 Does your organization qualify as an “Industry” under this definition? Let’s discuss in the comments!

19/02/2025

Orissa HC Quashes GST Penalty Under Section 74 Citing Jurisdictional Error

On behalf of petitioner Mr Harichandan, the advocate appears and said that the impugned is Show cause notice on 19th February 2024 that has the purported finding of misstatement made by his client, to underpay the tax issued under sub-section (l) in section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The provision was invoked to take the extended duration of limitation though no allegation of misstatement in the SCN was there.

Situations are been addressed by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017’s Section 74 where the taxes are not, paid in full, or incorrectly refunded, or in which input tax credits (ITCs) are improperly used or obtained as a consequence of fraud, deliberate misrepresentation.

It is been comprehended that there has been a jurisdictional error that proceeds to the root of the impugned order, the division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice, and Justice M.S. Sahoo set aside on interference. He also aspires to interim protection.

On behalf of revenue Mr. Satapathy, advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears and furnished that there is a clear finding of the misstatement. The tax rate was intended to be applied at a lower rate.

Acknowledging the submission of jurisdictional error going to the root of the impugned order, there is a necessity for the writ petition to be heard.

When a tax authority initiates proceedings or takes action beyond its legally defined area of authority then a jurisdictional error under GST arises. If a state officer furnishes a notice for a matter under the Central GST jurisdiction, or vice versa.

If a lower authority manages a case directed for a higher authority. If an officer from a distinct state or region furnishes a notice. When a matter pertinent to a regular is managed under the composition scheme.