The latest updates on relevant areas of law, curated by our team to be the most useful to clients as well as fellow legal practitioners.


Correction in GSTR-1 return even after prescribed time period is permissible, when there is no loss of revenue

24 一月 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 一月 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 一月 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 一月 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).

Reference to Larger Bench to be heard at instance of Intervener if appellant settles case

08 一月 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.

Cenvat credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods to buyer’s premises – CESTAT Larger Bench distinguishes SC decision in Ultratech Cement

28 十二月 2023

The Larger Bench of the CESTAT has held that for the purpose of eligibility of Cenvat credit on GTA service used for outward transportation, where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the ‘place of removal’ by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the Karnataka High Court decision in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the CBEC Circular dated 8 June 2018.

Proof of Right under the Patents Act, 1970 – Madras High Court provides clarity

28 十二月 2023

In a recent decision dated 19 December 2023[1], the Single Judge of the Madras High Court addressed an important issue in relation to the date of assignment and the date of declaration of the assignment, in the context of proof of right under the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Act’).

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Used Oils

18 十二月 2023

The Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change issued the Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 (‘Amendment’) on 18th September 2023.

Patents – Use of laminate in prior art cannot motivate person skilled in such art to consider use of a film on standalone basis

14 十二月 2023

The Madras High Court has set aside the decision of the Patent Office rejecting the patent application on grounds that the claimed invention was obvious and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 relating to ‘inventive step’

Patents – No deemed abandonment in case of bona fide belief of no necessity of consent under s.39 for patent of addition

11 十二月 2023

Observing that there was a bona fide belief on the part of the patentee regarding no requirement of permission under Section 39 of the Patents Act, 1970 for foreign filing of patent of addition, when parent invention was first filed in India, the Madras High Court has set aside the order rejecting patent application on the ground that the same was deemed to be abandoned under Section 40.

Browse News