Pendency Of Conciliation Proceedings Under MSME Act Does Not Bar Interim Relief U/S 9 Of A&C Act To Preserve Subject Matter: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that pendency of conciliation proceedings does not bar the grant of limited interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), where such relief is essential to preserve the subject matter of the dispute. Justice Gaurang Kanth held while allowing a Section 9 application filed by Rishi Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), appointing a Special Officer to inspect, measure, and document the existing status...

GST | Failure To Prove Dispatch Of Hearing Notice Doesn't Automatically Mean No Personal Hearing Was Given: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because the tax department is unable to place on record proof of dispatch of a personal hearing notice such as entries in a dispatch register, speed post receipts, or email records— it does not automatically follow that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain refused to entertain a writ petition challenging GST orders passed in a case involving allegations of fraudulent availment of...

Delhi High Court Stops Fake Job Recruitment In Akasa Air's Name, Orders Blocking Of Domains

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained several individuals and unknown persons from using the marks “AKASA,” “AKASA AIR,” and related trademarks to run alleged fake recruitment activities linked to Akasa Air, after finding a prima facie case of impersonation.Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the interim order on December 22, 2025, while hearing a trademark infringement suit filed by SNV Aviation Private Limited, the operator of Akasa Air. The ourt also directed the suspension of...

BNSS Procedures Mandatory For GST Arrests Despite Revenue Nature Of Investigation: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court held that even though GST investigations are revenue in nature, arrests made by GST officers must strictly comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Justice Pranjal Das opined that even with regard to arrest by revenue authorities under GST, the procedural compliance under Sections 35/47/48 B.N.S.S. are essential, failing which, the arrest may become bad in law. In the case at hand,...

Income Tax Act | Centralisation Of Assessment U/S 127 Permissible Where Cases Are Inter-Linked: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the transfer of assessment jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act is valid where cases are inter-linked, and centralisation is required for effective investigation and public interest. Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, grants the power to senior tax authorities to transfer a taxpayer's case from one Assessing Officer (AO) to another. Justices Deepaksibal and Lapita Banerji stated that in the absence of allegations...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Dr Reddy's From Manufacturing Sunscreen Product With “SUN” Mark On Sun Pharma Plea

The Delhi High Court has recently, temeperorily restrained Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. from further manufacturing sunscreen products bearing labels with the word “SUN”, holding that the usage appears to function as a trademark and not as a mere description. The court directed the company to maintain status quo until the next hearing. A single bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the interim order on December 24, 2025, while hearing a trademark infringement and passing off suit...

India-US DTAA | Outsourcing Customer Care Services To Indian Subsidiary Doesn't Create PE: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that outsourcing customer care and back-office services to an Indian subsidiary does not, by itself, result in the creation of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against EXL Service.com Inc., upholding the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that the...

IGST Not Leviable On Clinical Observation Studies Provided To Foreign Recipients: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) is not leviable on clinic observation studies for foreign recipients, as such services qualify as export of services with the recipient located outside India. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that having regard to the specific observations made in the 37th GST Council Meeting, whereby it was resolved to clarify the tax liability in GST liability in relation to foreign recipients for R & D services...

Karnataka High Court Annual TAX Digest 2025

Direct TaxProceedings Initiated Against Income Tax Assessee After His Death Cannot Be Continued Against Legal Representative: Karnataka HCCase Title: The Income Tax Officer & ANR Preeti VCase No:WRIT APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2024The Karnataka High Court has said proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative.A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja said, “Had the...

Second Arbitral Reference Maintainable When Award Is Set Aside Without Adjudication On Merits: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a second reference to arbitration is maintainable where an arbitral award has been set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") without any adjudication on merits of the claims, leaving the underlying disputes unresolved. Justice Sanjay Dhar said while allowing the application seeking appointment of a fresh arbitrator after the earlier award had been set aside by the Designated...

Bar U/S 42 Of Arbitration Act Not Attracted Where Seat Is Chosen Before First Application Is Filed: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that where parties have already chosen a seat of arbitration before the first application is filed, the courts exercising jurisdiction over the seat alone will have jurisdiction over all subsequent applications, including those under sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") notwithstanding that earlier application may have been filed before another High Court. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held while...