20 February 2024
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the CESTAT Order which had held that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) set up as a Trust is a ‘distinct entity’ separate from its contributors/investors. Disregarding the principle of mutuality of interest, the Tribunal had held that a VCF was rendering taxable services of portfolio or asset management to its contributors for a consideration on which service tax was liable.
Copyrights – Owner/assignee can carry on business of granting copyright licences without registration as copyright society
08 February 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that it is not necessary for the owners/assignees of copyright to be registered as copyright societies for carrying on the business of granting licenses of their works. The High Court for this purpose observed that Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act [relating to copyright societies] does not curtail the power of the owner/assignee/duly authorised agent to grant any interest in the copyright by license under Section 30 [relating to licences by owners of copyright].
06 February 2024
The Delhi High Court in its recent decision has held that Directors of a company cannot be made parties to the arbitration proceedings initiated against the company.
02 February 2024
The Interim Budget 2024 outlines key priorities for the country’s development, highlighting key areas of focus for growth and development. Emphasising infrastructure, the government plans to implement major railway corridors, expand regional infrastructure and develop airports under various schemes. The following initiatives, coupled with focus on attracting investment, reflect a forward-looking approach.
01 February 2024
In a case where the GST amount was paid in the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) by generating GST PMT-06 before the due date, though the GSTR-3B return was filed belatedly, the Madras High Court has rejected the contention of the Department that the deposit of tax in ECL would not amount to payment of tax and would attract interest liability.
Correction in GSTR-1 return even after prescribed time period is permissible, when there is no loss of revenue
24 January 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that a bonafide, inadvertent error in furnishing details in a GST return needs to be recognized and permitted to be corrected by the department, when in such cases the department is aware that there is no loss of revenue to the Government.
Front, middle and back cover of cellular phone are classifiable under TI 8517 70 90 – Classification cannot be decided by exemption notification
24 January 2024
The CESTAT New Delhi has held that front cover, middle cover and back covers of cellular phones which house various components of the phone and also provide for dissipation of the heat, are classifiable under Tariff Item 8517 70 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under TI 3920 99 99.
Patents – Territorial jurisdiction of High Court – Location of ‘appropriate patent office’ when not material
22 January 2024
The Madras High Court has held that when certain critical events leading to the examination of the patent, hearing of the opposition of the patent, pronouncement of orders, rejecting the opposition, all happened in Chennai, the Court will have jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. It observed that irrespective of location of the ‘appropriate patent office’, a particular High Court would have territorial jurisdiction if part cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Facilitating booking of hotel rooms through online portal is covered under Tour Operator service – 90% abatement available
17 January 2024
The CESTAT New Delhi has set aside a demand of service tax against a major online travel company which allowed the customers to book hotel rooms through its website/mobile application. The Revenue Department had alleged that the service was covered under ‘short-term accommodation’ service taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzzw) of the Finance Act, 1994 and not under ‘tour operator’ service under Section 65(105)(n).
08 January 2024
The Larger Bench of the CESTAT has held that the hearing and resolution of the issue referred to the Larger Bench is be continued at the instance of the Intervener even if the case of the appellant has been settled under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme subsequent to the reference to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.