Madras High Court Allows “Acha Dholak” Pleading Amendment, Says Issues Framing Does Not Commence Trial

On 1 October, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing amendment of pleadings in a trade mark suit concerning the “Acha Dholak” safety match brand. Justice R. Poornima held that mere framing of issues does not establish that a trial has substantially commenced for deciding an application to amend pleadings. The Bench observed: “Mere framing of issues does not, by itself, establish that the trial had substantially commenced....

Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Sec. 19 In 2018 Commercial Courts Amendment Act

The Delhi High Court on 30 September upheld the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018, holding that applying the amended regime only to commercial disputes instituted on or after 3 May 2018 does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed a petition filed by Alpro Industries and others...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Insurance Broker's Plea Against Income Tax Reassessment, Cites Earlier Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Zoom Insurance Brokers challenging proceedings initiated under Sections 148A(3) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that an identical challenge by the company for the preceding assessment year had already been rejected by a Coordinate Bench.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary noted that the facts of the present case were identical to those considered in Petitioner's earlier case, except for the...

Sahara India Tax Appeals To Be Heard By Delhi ITAT Despite AO's Lucknow Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by Sahara India group companies and directed that their pending income tax appeals be heard by the Delhi Bench of ITAT , even though the Assessing Officer (AO) having jurisdiction over the assessees was situated in Lucknow.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary noted that more than 100 appeals concerning the assessee's group companies were already being heard by the Delhi Bench and that both the assessees...

Delhi HC Refuses To Quash ₹47.93 Lakh GST Demand, Says Common Supplier Alone Doesn't Bar Parallel Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a ₹47.93 lakh GST demand against a taxpayer, holding that the mere fact that State and Central GST proceedings involved the same supplier does not, by itself, attract the bar against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that the expression “same subject matter” under Section 6(2)(b) has to be determined by examining the...

Already Revoked Customs Broker Licence Cannot Be Revoked Again: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a Customs Broker licence which has already been revoked cannot be revoked again in separate proceedings, observing that such an action is beyond the statutory provisions and results in multiplicity of litigation.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing the appeal of a proprietorship concern which was granted a Customs Broker license in November 2016.The Customs authorities had, by an order dated July 1, 2020, revoked the licence...

Micromax's ₹154 Crore Deposit In Ericsson Patent Case Was Not Royalty For Service Tax: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that ₹154.79 crore deposited by Micromax Informatics Ltd. pursuant to interim orders passed in a patent dispute with Ericsson could not be treated as a payment towards royalty for the purpose of service tax.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal filed by the CGST Department against a CESTAT order upholding the dropping of a service tax demand against Micromax.The dispute arose from litigation between Micromax and...

GST Refund Can Be Withheld During Anti-Evasion Probe Involving Fraud, Malfeasance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the pendency of an Anti-Evasion investigation, coupled with the Commissioner's finding of suspected fraud or malfeasance, can justify withholding a GST refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even when no appeal against the order granting the refund is pending.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by an electronics exporter, which had sought release of a...

Delhi High Court Upholds Customs Broker Licence Revocation Over Forged Graduation Degree

The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of a Customs Broker licence after finding that the graduation degree submitted by the broker was forged.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed an appeal filed by R.K. Logistics challenging a CESTAT order which had upheld the revocation of its license, forfeiture of security and imposition of a ₹50,000 penalty.Appellant had applied for a Customs Broker licence in 2014 under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations,...

AO Must Decide Reassessment Objections Before Scrutiny Can Begin: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that an Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act to scrutinise a return in reassessment proceedings before deciding the assessee's objections to reopening the assessment.A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that issuing a Section 143(2) notice amounts to proceeding with the assessment. The Assessing Officer must therefore first dispose of the assessee's objections to reopening...

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...