Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR)
Free IPL tickets: Supply of Complimentary tickets is promotion of business; attracts GST
Arun Narayan Gupta Chief Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, and Kamal Kishor Yadav, Commissioner of State Tax held that the distribution of match tickets to related persons for the promotion of business attracts GST.
[KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd.]
Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR)
GST to be charged on sale of a car by company after using it for business purpose
Members Atul Mehta and Arun Richard, has held that 18% GST is payable on value for intended supply on the sale of a car by a company after using it for business purposes.
[Dishman Carbogen Amcis Ltd.]
No GST on Solid Waste Management contracts; Bio-CNG not exempted
T.G. Venkatesh, Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, and K. Latha, Joint Commissioner of State Tax has held that the contracts relating to solid waste management and removal of legacy waste dumped at bio-mining sites, except Bio-CNG are exempted from GST.
[Srinivas Waste Management Services Pvt. Ltd.]
When does a vessel support service qualify as ‘Export of Services’?
T.G. Venkatesh, Additional Commissioner, and K. Latha, Joint Commissioner held that concerning vessel support services provided to foreign vessels, the service provided falls under export of services as per provisions of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) as the place of supply is outside India.
[NSK Ship Management Pvt Ltd.]
Armed Force Tribunal (AFT)
A Cadet is akin to a probationer; can be discharged by employer if not meeting the medical standards required for military service
The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) held that a cadet is akin to a probationer; hence, the employer has a right to discharge a Cadet who is not meeting the medical standards required for military service/training.
[Nira Chaudhary v. Union of India]
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
Can TCS collected from sale of scrap be included in the assessable value for charging Excise Duty?
The coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) allowed an appeal holding that TCS collected from sale of scrap cannot be included in the assessable value for charging excise duty which was filed by the aggrieved on the dismissal of the previous appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).
[Yashraj Containeurs Ltd. v. C.C.E & S.T.]
Does empty packaging drums of cenvatable input attract payment of excise duty or cenvat credit?
While dealing with an issue relating to payment of 6% on empty packaging drums of cenvatable input considering the same as non-excisable goods, Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) held that the empty packaging material of cenvatable input is not liable for payment.
[Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. C.C.E & ST]
Whether ocean freight charges can be collected, subject to levy of Service Tax?
The Division Coram of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed two appeals (with same issue involved) which were filed aggrieved by the order of original authority. The Tribunal answered that ocean freight charges are not subject to levy of Service Tax under Business Support Services or Business Auxiliary Services.
[Geodis Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of ST]
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC)
DCDRC directs Facebook to run online scam related awareness advertisements on various media platforms in order to neutralize the effect of misleading ads on its page
In the instant ‘unique’ complaint, relief in the nature of directions to Facebook were sought vis-a-vis discontinuation of unfair/ restrictive trade practices; not putting up misleading advertisements and neutralization of the effect of misleading advertisements on their platform. The coram of Bhaskar B. Yogi (President) and Sarita B. Raipure (Member) directed Facebook and Meta Inc. to run scam related awareness advertisement on various media, social sites, TV and OTT platforms to create awareness regarding various scam on regular basis to neutralize the impact of misleading advertisements. The Commission also stated that Facebook has a legal and social duty and obligation to provide funding to a step-by-step service to aid and advise the public regarding online frauds and scams.
[Tribhuvan v. Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd.,]
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
Is the sale of Carbon Credit considered revenue or capital in nature?
While deciding an appeal wherein a major issue that came before Tribunal was whether receipts received by the assessee on sale of alleged carbon credit is revenue in nature or capital in nature. The coram of Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member), held that by the virtue of S. 115 BBG of Income Tax Act, sale of Renewable Energy Certificate (Carbon Credit) of income received by the assessee is a capital receipt and cannot be considered business receipt or income.
[Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT]
Whether a typographical error in mentioning a bank account number can have adverse impact on income tax assessment?
While deciding the instant appeal by the Revenue against the Order by CIT (A) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the assessee’s unexplained bank cash deposits; the coram of Duvvuru R.L. Reddy (Judicial Member) and S. Balakrishnan (Accountant Member), held that a mere typographical error in mentioning the bank account number does not mean that the assessee has not disclosed proper information about the bank account details.
[Income Tax Officer v. Sri Siddi Vinayaka Auto Mobiles]
Can incorrect entries; hybrid system of account lead to rejection of books of Accounts & Labor Charges?
Dealing with the issue pertaining to rejection of books of accounts, sustainability of disallowance of labour charges, and disallowance of outstanding labour charges, the Gagan Goyal, Accountant Member has held that CIT(A) was correct and justified in rejecting the books of account by invoking section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the Assessee has opted for a hybrid system of the account which is not permitted in under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
[Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-32(1) v. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel]
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
Can Lease Rental come under the purview of ‘Operational Debt’?
The Bench of Ashok Bhushan J., Chairperson, Rakesh Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar, JJ, Judicial Members, and Barun Mitra and Naresh Salecha, Technical Members, have held that lease rentals for business purposes fall under the definition of ‘Operational Debt’ as per Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
[Jaipur Trade Expocentre Pvt Ltd versus Metro Jet Airways Pvt Ltd]
Can a Resolution Professional “freeze” the Bank Accounts of Corporate Debtor?
The Bench of M.V. Venugopal, J. Judicial Member, and Kanthi Narahari, Technical Member has held that a Resolution Professional under Section 18(1)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Hereinafter as IBC) is only an authority to exercise control over Bank Accounts operated by the ‘Corporate Debtor’. He cannot freeze the ‘Bank Accounts’.
[Beauty Etiole Pvt. Ltd. v. C. Sanjeevi]
Interest on Delayed Payments is a part of Operational Debt under S. 3(11) of IBC
The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Chairperson, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Judicial Member, and Naresh Salecha, Technical member has dismissed a company appeal and has held that interest on delayed payment is also a form of debt and therefore, would form a part of the operational debt under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
[Prashat Agarwal v. Vikash Parasrampuria]
Can the OTS proposal be an ‘acknowledgment of debt’ under S. 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
The Bench of Anant Bijay Singh, J., Judicial Member, and Shreesha Merla, Technical Member, dismissed a company appeal and held that a One-Time Settlement Proposal (OTS proposal) falls within the definition of ‘acknowledgment of debt’ as defined the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
[Tejas Khandhar v. Bank of Baroda]
Right to payment cannot be accrued when a corporate guarantee is not invoked before CIRP initiation
The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Chairperson, and Shreesha Merla, Technical Member, while dismissing a company appeal held that when a Corporate Debtor as a Guarantor has not invoked the Corporate Guarantee before the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter as ‘CIRP’) under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Hereinafter as ‘IBC’) then the ‘right to payment’ cannot be accrued by the Corporate Debtor.
[IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Abhinav Mukherjee]
Entertainment City Ltd an ‘affiliate’ of United Group; NCLAT grants Moratorium Benefits
The Bench of Ashok Kumar Bhushan, J., Chairperson, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J., Judicial Member, and Barun Mitra, Technical Member set aside an order given by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT, New Delhi) and held that the Appellant, Entertainment City Ltd., is an affiliate of the Unitech Group. Hence, the moratorium imposed by the Supreme Court in orders given in the case of Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 10856 of 2016, on 20-01-2021 and 24-03-2021 would apply to the Appellant and the application filed by the Respondent for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 stood adjourned sine die.
[Entertainment City Ltd v. Simran Kaur]
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
Can Resolution Professional submit report prior to Adjudicating Authority’s direction?
In a case where a Resolution Professional (RP) had submitted a report even prior to the order by the Adjudicating Authority that had appointed him, the bench of of H. V. Subba Rao, Judicial Member and Chandra Bhan Singh, Technical Member, has asked him to submit a fresh report.
[Bank of Baroda Limited v Pawan V Kikavat]
Auction purchaser responsible for claims/ liabilities/ obligations of Corporate Debtor
The coram of H.V. Subba Rao, Judicial Member and Chandra Bhan Singh, Technical Member, declared that the auction purchaser of the Corporate Debtor company, as a going concern, is responsible for any claims/ liabilities/ obligations of the Corporate Debtor.
[Gaurav Agarwal v. CA Devang P Sampat]
When can a liquidator in a liquidation process be replaced?
The Bench of S. Ramathilagam, J., Judicial Member, and Anil Kumar B, Technical Member held that the tribunal has the power to replace the liquidator of a Corporate Debtor in a liquidating process if the tribunal finds necessary grounds for such replacement.
[IDBI Bank Ltd. v. V. Venkata Sivakumar]
Can a Financial Creditor initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Personal Guarantor?
The Bench of N. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath, Judicial Member, and Veera Brahma Rao Arekapud, Technical Member held that a guarantor cannot enjoy the right of subrogation enunciated in the Contract Act, 1872, when the payment made by the guarantor regards the debt for which the guarantee was provided.
[State Bank of India v. Ghanshyam Surajbali Kurmi]
Sahara Hospitality to go through Corporate Insolvency Process
The Bench of P.N. Deshmukh, J., Judicial Member, and Shyam Babu Gautam, Technical Member admitted an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Sahara Hospitality Ltd. (Sahara).
[Delta Electro Mechanical Pvt. Ltd. V. Sahara Hospitality Ltd.,]
National Green Tribunal (NGT)
High Time to formulate a sound solar waste management policy: NGT takes suo motu cognizance
The Bench of Adarsh Kumar Goel, J(Chairperson) and Sudhir Agarwal, J (Judicial Member) and Prof. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member) took suo moto cognizance based on media report titled “Times’s running out; Is India ready to handle 34,000 tonnes of Solar Waste by 2030?” highlighting the need for formulation of a sound solar waste management policy in India
[In re: Article Published in the magazine i.e Down to earth dated 13 January 2022 Under the Title Time’s running out: Is India ready to handle 34,600 tonnes of Solar waste by 2030]
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
SEBI fines Rs. 7 crores on NSE and nearly 35 crores on guilty officials and stockbrokers in Dark Fibre Case
Dark Fibre/Leased Line connectivity allowed to certain Stock Brokers, the Adjudicating Officer In the matter relating to Dark Fibre/ Leased Line connectivity allowed to certain Stock Brokers, the Adjudicating Officer Suresh B Menon has who was CEO of NSE at the relevant time;observed some irregularities in respect of co-location and corporate governance at National Stock Exchange Limited (‘NSE’) for which it has been penalized with Rs. 7 crores fine. Chitra Ramakrishna, who was CEO of NSE at the relevant time; and Key Management Persons Subramanian Anand, and Ravi Varanasi were fined with Rs. 5 Crores each.
[Dark Fibre/Leased Line connectivity allowed to certain Stock Brokers by NSE, In re, ADJUDICATIONORDER Ref. No. ORDER/SBM/ASR/2022-23/17390-17407]
Whether the delay in filing complaints against unregistered sub-brokers, can be condoned? SEBI Special Court answers
In the instant case dealing with unregistered brokerage, Vishal Sadashivrao Gaike, J. deliberated over the issue that whether a delay in filing a complaint against unregistered sub-brokers, can be condoned or not. It was held that, in view of the facts of such cases and seriousness of such allegations (as they are in the instant case), it is in the interest of justice that such a delay be condoned.
[Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Balaji & Co.]
