Patna High Court Orders ₹1.24 Lakh Refund After Service Tax Appeal Pre-Deposit Paid Twice, Grants 12% Interest

The Patna High Court has directed the Central GST and Central Excise Department to refund ₹1,24,175 to a petitioner after finding that the amount paid towards the mandatory pre-deposit for a service tax appeal was deposited twiceThe Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra also directed the Department to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of the second receipt until payment, along with ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.The Court further permitted the...

Madras High Court Upholds Setting Aside Of ₹2.63 Crore Service Tax Demand On TNCSC Over Storage Godowns

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld an order setting aside a ₹2.63 crore service tax demand against the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC). The demand was raised for the construction of scientific storage godowns used primarily to store paddy procured from farmers for distribution through the Public Distribution SystemA Division Bench of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice N. Dileep Kumar held that TNCSC qualifies as a “governmental authority” under the Mega Exemption...

Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Fake Honda Parts, Says Logo Can Be Copyrighted

On 30 September, the Gujarat High Court refused to quash a criminal case against businessman Atul Bhalerao Patil over the seizure of counterfeit Honda scooter accessories and 250 loose stickers bearing the Honda Wing Logo. Justice P. M. Raval dismissed Patil's petition after police seized duplicate Honda Activa accessories worth over Rs. 7 lakh, including goods worth Rs. 4,65,650 from his unit in Ahmedabad, along with the stickers. The Bench observed: “Where the accused is found in possession...

Changing Rent Claim To Mesne Profits Without Changing Quantum Not Patent Illegality: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on 24 September held that recasting an arbitral claim from “rent” as “mesne profits” does not amount to patent illegality warranting interference with an award when the monetary liability remains unchanged. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed Indus Towers' challenge to an arbitral award directing it to pay the landowners Rs. 25,800 per month, with contractual escalation, until it handed over vacant possession, describing...

Delhi High Court Questions Income Tax Dept. Over Two PANs Issued In Same Person's Name, Seeks Records

The Delhi High Court has questioned the Income Tax Department over the issuance of two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) in the name of the same person and directed the Department to produce the original records relating to both PAN cards.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary was hearing a petition filed by Neeraj Kukreja, who claimed that he holds only one PAN and had neither applied for nor obtained the second PAN attributed to him. The Income Tax Department however...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With 2003 Customs Notice To Mangali Impex, Cites SC's Canon India Ruling

The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with a 2003 show cause notice issued by the Customs Department to Mangali Impex Ltd., holding that the issue of whether the officer who issued the notice was the “proper officer” has already been settled by the Supreme Court in favour of the department.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing a petition challenging the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Intelligence & Investigation...

Delhi HC Quashes 2005-06 VAT Demand Against Builder Over Lack Of Taxable Turnover Rules

The Delhi High Court has quashed a Value Added Tax (VAT) demand raised against a builder for the assessment year 2005-06, holding that the levy could not be enforced in the absence of machinery provisions prescribing the manner of determining taxable turnover for works contracts.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain allowed the petition filed by a builder, challenging demand and notice of default assessment.The Court noted that two issues arose for consideration: whether...

Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer 'RIO' Trade Mark Suit For Joint Trial With Rectification Plea

The Madras High Court on 30 September dismissed Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd's plea to transfer its trade mark infringement and passing off suit against Rajesh Jayaraj from the Principal District Court, Madurai, to the High Court's Intellectual Property Division for joint trial with a rectification petition concerning the “RIO” mark. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 cannot be invoked “as a matter of course” merely...

Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict In Vedanta's Appeal Against Rejection Of Oil Block Contract Extension Bid

The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved judgment in Vedanta Ltd.'s appeal challenging the July 22, 2026 judgment of a Single Judge which upheld the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas's rejection of Vedanta's application for extension of the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) for the CB-OS/2 oil and gas block in Gujarat.The Single Judge held that Vedanta had rendered itself ineligible for extension by unilaterally deducting the Government's share of profit petroleum towards its Special...

Party Choosing Pre-Suit Mediation Must End It Before Invoking Arbitration: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 28 September held that a party cannot invoke the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while pre-institution mediation proceedings it had voluntarily initiated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 remain pending. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed Grand Blue Projects Pvt Ltd's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, seeking to restrain True Value Home India Pvt Ltd and TVH Estates Chennai Pvt Ltd from dealing with the disputed property. The...

Arbitrator's Mandate Not Automatically Terminated By Expiry Of Indicative Timeline: Delhi High Court

On 30 September, the Delhi High Court held that an arbitrator's mandate does not end merely because an indicative time period fixed by the Court for completing proceedings has expired, unless the direction imposed a mandatory deadline. A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed M.K. Construction's appeal against an arbitral award in its residential construction dispute with Maj. Gen. Hoshiar Singh (Retd). It observed: “The direction of this Court did not...

No Limitation To Claim Delay Interest Where Allottee Continues With Project: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on 23 September held that an allottee who continues with a real estate project can claim interest for every month of delay in possession, as the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 prescribes no limitation for raising such a claim. A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's direction to pay delay interest, holding that the expression “demand” in the...