Trademark Owner As Director Of Applicant Company Not Enough To Seek Rival's Name Change: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High court has quashed two MCA orders directing companies run by Kandamkulathy Francis Paul to change their names after K. P. Pathrose Vaidyan's Kandamkulathy Vaidyasala Pvt. Ltd. sought rectification of their names under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the company seeking the name changes did not itself hold the registered “Kandamkulathy” trademark. It therefore could not maintain the applications under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies...

Kerala High Court Directs Numbering Of Suit Over Anonymous Review Of Antony Varghese's Kattalan

The Kerala High Court has directed the Principal Munsiff court in Ernakulam to number a suit seeking removal of a review of the malayalam film Kattalan posted on BookMyShow.Justice Easwaran S. held that insisting on the physical address of an unidentified reviewer defeats the purpose of “John Doe” proceedings. “The insistence on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, to correct the physical address of 'John Doe-2nd defendant' under Order VI Rule 14A of CPC creates a procedural...

GST | Same Assessee, Overlapping Periods Not Enough To Bar DGGI Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings initiated by State GST authorities and the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are not barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely because they relate to the same assessee, overlapping financial periods, or involve Input Tax Credit (ITC).The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) is attracted only when the subsequent...

Objection To Parallel State GST, DGGI Proceedings Can Be Raised In Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court Refuses Writ

The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer challenging proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) on the ground that the same subject matter had already been dealt with by State GST authorities can raise the objection under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), before the statutory appellate authority.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a plea by challenging show cause notice...

GST | Disputed SCN Service, Personal Hearing Issues Cannot Be Raised In Writ Plea: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction over pleas by two directors of Sterne India Pvt. Ltd. challenging a ₹27.11 crore GST penalty. The court held that their claims over service of the show cause notice (SCN) and denial of personal hearing involved factual issues that could be examined by the statutory appellate authority. According to the court, these grievances did not justify bypassing the remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and...

CBDT Circulars Reflect Executive's Understanding Of Law, Not Binding On Courts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that CBDT circulars merely represent the Executive's understanding of a statutory provision and are not binding on the High Courts or the Supreme Court. The observation came while the court rejected an assessee's reliance on a CBDT Office Memorandum to claim a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act on premium received from the sale of export quotasA bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that such circulars merely reflect the...

GST | Proceedings Under Sections 73, 74 Can Co-Exist If They Concern Distinct Infractions: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) can co-exist where they concern distinct liabilities or contraventions.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a plea filed challenging proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities under Section 74 of the CGST Act in relation to alleged inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by...

India-Netherlands DTAA | AO Can't Use Reassessment To Cure Own Failure To Record On PE: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot invoke reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely to make up for his own failure to record a finding on the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, after having conducted an inquiry into the issue during the original assessment.The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Elsevier BV, a company incorporated...

HC Can't Bypass Customs Statutory Appeal Merely Due To Financial Hardship In Making Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism under the Customs Act merely by citing financial hardship in complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging ₹3 crore penalty imposed on a man in connection with an alleged attempt to export red sanders wood concealed beneath carpets."However, once the legislature has...

Welfare-Oriented Rehabilitation Policy Cannot Preserve Claims Extinguished Under IBC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a rehabilitation policy or agreement with a project-affected person cannot preserve a claim merely because it is welfare-oriented, as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides inconsistent laws and policies.Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar observed, “Thus, Rehabilitation policy or any agreement with project affected (displaced) person cannot facilitate claim as an exception for the reason that it is welfare oriented. Section 238 of IBC gives Insolvency...

Venture Capital Funds Need No Separate SEBI Registration For Each Scheme For Income Tax Exemption: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI does not need separate registration for each scheme it operates to claim exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act.A Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Milestone Real Estate Fund. The court upheld the Fund's eligibility for the exemption.Section 10(23FB) provides that income earned by a qualifying VCF from...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Excludes Automatic Stay Period From Limitation For Execution Of Arbitral Award

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an execution petition filed in 2025 to enforce a 2012 arbitral award was within limitation. It held that the period during which the award was deemed to be automatically stayed under the law then prevailing had to be excluded while calculating limitation.Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed, “In the instant case, objections under Section 34 of the Act were preferred by the respondent-Judgment Debtor within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore,...