In October 2025, several significant developments unfolded across Tribunals and Commissions. From CCPA’s order imposing Rs 5 Lakh penalty on Drishti IAS over misleading advertisement, CCI’S dismissal of abuse of dominance case against ICICI Securities NSE and BSE, NHRC cognizance on fire in Trauma centre ICU at SMS Hospital Jaipur and reported abduction and murder of differently abled RTI activist in Gujarat, CESTAT’s order on old/used lead-acid batteries recovered from ship, this quick legal roundup presents the month’s most significant stories acrossRegulatory Bodies, Tribunals, and Commissions.
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (GST)
Inside Gujarat Appellate AAR order refusing Input Tax Credit claim on buyback expenditure of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemical’s shares
In an appeal filed by Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (GNFC) against the ruling of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (GAAR) denying input tax credit (ITC) on expenses incurred for buyback of shares, the Two-Member Bench of Rajeev Topno, Member (SGST)* and Sunil Kumar Mall, Member (CGST)* rejected the appeal, holding that since buyback of shares constitutes a transaction in securities, which is neither a supply of goods nor of services under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), no ITC can be availed on such expenditure and reversal of common input credit is mandatory under Section 17(3) of the CGST Act. Read More HERE
Central Consumer Protection Authority
Inside CCPA order imposing Rs 5 Lakh penalty on Drishti IAS over misleading ad on selection of 216+ candidates in UPSC CSE 2022
While considering this suo motu matter revolving around an advertisement by Drishti IAS (VDK Eduventures Pvt. Ltd.), concerning selection of 216+ candidates in UPSC CSE 2022; the Bench of Nidhi Khare (Chief Commissioner) and Anupam Mishra (Commissioner), found the claim made in the impugned advertisement to be misleading and directed Drishti IAS to pay penalty of Rs 5 Lakhs for publishing the misleading advertisement. Read More HERE
Competition Commission of India
‘Several key players act as competitive constraint’; CCI dismisses anti-competitive, abuse of dominance allegations against ICICI Securities, NSE & BSE
A complaint was filed by the Informant under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’), alleging violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by ICICI Securities Limited (‘ICICI’), in alleged collusion with the National Stock Exchange (‘NSE’) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (‘BSE’). The four-member Bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member) examined whether the standardisation of the Authorised Person (‘AP’) Agreement and ICICI’s termination practices contravened Sections 3(3), 3(4), and 4 of the Act. The Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) observed that the agreement format stemmed from Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) regulatory framework aimed at investor protection and operational consistency. Therefore, it held that the enforcement of uniform AP Agreements by NSE and BSE did not constitute a concerted practice under Section 3(3) of the Act. The CCI noted that the securities broking industry in India was competitive and include several large players, and that ICICI did not hold a dominant position in the market. The CCI found no evidence of ICICI exercising significant market power or engaging in anti-competitive vertical restraints. The CCI thus held that there was no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act. Read More HERE
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Old/Used Lead Acid Batteries recovered from ship not exigible to central excise duty: CESTAT
In an appeal filed against order of confirmation of the demand of central excise duty by Commissioner (Appeals), the two-member Bench of Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) and Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal and held that old Lead Acid Batteries recovered from ship breaking were not excisable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Central Excise Act) as it did not amount to manufacture. Read More HERE
Transferring tenancy and occupancy rights in immovable property not service under S. 65-B(44) of Finance Act; not liable to service tax: CESTAT, Ahmedabad
In an appeal filed against order of confirmation of the demand of service tax by Commissioner (Appeals), the two-member Bench of Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) and Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal and stated that the activity of transfer of tenancy and occupancy rights in respect of immovable property did not come under the definition of service under Section 65-B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 (‘Finance Act’). Hence, the amount received from the owner for surrendering and relinquishing tenancy and occupancy rights was not taxable. Read More HERE
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Online shopping platforms should develop a system of photographing/video recording of receiving & opening of packages by delivery persons: DCDRC, East Delhi
While considering this consumer dispute wherein the complainant had alleged that he was sold a different laptop instead of the one he had ordered from Amazon Retail; the Bench of S.S. Malhotra (President) and Ravi Kumar (Member)*, found both Amazon and Appario Retail (OP-2) liable for deficiency of service. The DCDRC however opined that there should be a system in place by online sellers/platforms whereby photographs or videos of receiving and opening of the packet is taken by their representative/ rider /delivery person, to keep record of what is being delivered. The Commission opined that this approach would avoid many complaints in future. Read More HERE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
‘Escaped income is below Rs 50 lakhs’; ITAT quashes reassessment notice under S. 148 Income Tax Act issued beyond prescribed limitation of 3 years
In the present case, an appeal was filed by the appellant-assessee against the impugned order dated 16-6-2025, passed by the NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year (‘A.Y.’) 2017-18, whereby NFAC confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), although the reopening was barred by limitation as escaped income was less than Rs 50 lakhs and did not fall under the extended time limitation under Section 149(1)(b). Mahavir Singh (Vice President), observed that the escaped income in the present case was below Rs 50 lakhs and as per Section 149(1)(a), the notice under Section 148 could be issued only within 3 years from the end of relevant assessment year, i.e., upto 31-03-2021, whereas in the present case, the notice was issued on 09-02-2024. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible period of limitation under Section 149(1)(a), therefore, the reassessment was void ab initio. Read More HERE
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT
The present company appeal was filed by the Resolution professional (‘appellant’) of Rajesh Landmark Projects (P) Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’), challenging the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Court V, Mumbai Bench (‘Adjudicating Authority’), which had allowed an interim application filed by the appellant seeking liquidation of the corporate debtor. However, instead of appointing the appellant as liquidator, it appointed Respondent 2, relying on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) circular dated 18-7-2023 (‘Circular’). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), stated that the legislative scheme of Section 34(1) of the IBC clearly intended the Resolution professional to be appointed as liquidator, with replacement being a discretionary act of the adjudicating authority based on the grounds specified in Section 34(4) of the IBC. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the impugned order insofar as it appointed Respondent 2 as liquidator could not be sustained. Since there were no grounds available under Section 34(4) of the IBC for replacing the appellant, the appellant was required to be appointed as liquidator. Read More HERE
National Human Rights Commission
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of fire in Trauma centre ICU at SMS Hospital Jaipur
On 14-10-2025, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognizance of a media report that eight patients died and three others were critically injured in a fire at the trauma centre ICU of the Government run Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital in Jaipur, Rajasthan on 06-10-2025. Read More HERE
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of reported abduction and murder of differently abled RTI activist in Gujarat
On 22-10-2025, the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) took suo motu cognizance of a media report regarding the death of a differently abled RTI activist in Tharad district, Gujarat. The victim was reportedly abducted by unidentified persons from an area near his residence on 12-10-2025, and his dead body was subsequently found in a canal on 14-10-2025. Read More HERE
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of reported attacks on three journalists in Kerala, Manipur, and Tripura
On 22-10-2025, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognizance of the reported attacks on three journalists in Kerala and Manipur on 31-08-2025, and Tripura on 21-09-2025. Read More HERE