In September 2025, a series of significant events unfolded within Tribunals and Commissions. From CCI’S abuse of dominance case against GMR Hyderabad Airport, to the CESTAT’s exemption of service tax for Education Welfare Society, the September 2025 events from Tribunals and Commissions were both diverse and impactful. Amid SEBI’s ruling on liability of partners, EPFO stakeholder claims and AAR’s decision on separate GST Registration for Free Trade Warehousing Zone operations, this quick legal roundup presents the month’s most significant stories from Regulatory Bodies, Tribunals, and Commissions.
Authority for Advance Ruling
Separate GST registration not required under S. 22 CGST Act for Free Trade Warehousing Zone operations: AAR, Tamil Nadu
In an application filed by West Pharmaceutical Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (‘applicant’), the two-Member Bench of B. Susee Kumar (Member-SGST) and Balakrishna S. (Member-CGST) ruled that the applicant was not required to obtain a separate GST registration in Tamil Nadu for its Free Trade Warehousing Zone (‘FTWZ’) unit at Chennai, since all taxable supplies were covered under its existing Telangana registration. Read More HERE
Competition Commission of India
Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope of Competition Act: CCI
A complaint was filed by the Informant under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘2002 Act’), alleging anti-competitive agreement or conduct by a juice corner operator-Opposite Party. A Bench comprising of Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member), held that the Opposite Party was operating independently, and actions such as selling products at low prices or operating without licenses were not considered violations under Section 3 of the 2002 Act, by an entity who was not a significant market player. It was also held that unauthorised occupation of public premises, alleged use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standards did not fall within the scope of the 2002 Act. Read More HERE
CCI dismisses abuse of dominance case against GMR Hyderabad Airport Ltd; cites operational constraints for non-renewal of license
A complaint was filed by the Air Works India (Engg.) (P) Ltd. (‘Informant’), under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’), alleging abuse of dominant position by GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd. (‘GMR Hyderabad’) and its subsidiary GMR Aero Technic Ltd. (‘subsidiary’), in violation of Sections 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(e) of the Act. The four-member Bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member) upheld the Director General’s (‘DG’) delineation of the relevant markets, identifying the upstream market as access to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and the downstream market as the provision of Line Maintenance Services, and found that GMR Hyderabad held a dominant position in the upstream market. However, the CCI concluded that there was no violation of Sections 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), or 4(2)(e) of the Act, as the non-renewal of the license was due to space and operational constraints, not to restrict competition or deny market access. There was no evidence of GMR Hyderabad leveraging its dominance to benefit or give preferential treatment to its subsidiary. Accordingly, no abuse of dominance was established. Read More HERE
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
SKY Lark Education Welfare Society an educational institution; will be exempted from service tax: CESTAT Allahabad
In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Noida, a Single Judge Bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) noted that the appellant-SKY Lark Education Welfare Society was providing vocational education under programme approved by National Urban Livelihood Mission, which were based on curriculum approved by Uttar Pradesh Government. The Tribunal held that the appellant would be treated as educational institution as per the definition given under Clause (oa) of Notification No.25/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Thus, the services provided by the appellant would be exempted from service tax under Clause (9) of the Notification. Read More HERE
Damages received for dispute settlement of agreement to sell, not taxable as ‘declared service’ under S. 66-E(e) of Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT, New Delhi
In appeals filed against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, the two-member Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the appeals and held that damages received for settlement of dispute of an agreement to sell, did not amount to a ‘Declared Service’ under Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 (‘Finance Act’). Read More HERE
‘Mechanical reliance on income tax data impermissible’: CESTAT Kolkata sets aside service tax demand confirmed without corroborative evidence
In an appeal filed against order of confirmation of the service tax demand by Commissioner (Appeals), K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) stated that the demand confirmed in the order, solely relying on the data received from Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), without adducing corroborative evidence in support, could not be sustained. Such mechanical reliance on income tax data, without verification of the nature of receipts of proof of taxable services rendered, was impermissible in law. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. Read More HERE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Notice to deceased assessee must first be served on legal heirs; once on record, legal heirs represent deceased assessee: ITAT, Kolkata
The present appeal was filed by the daughter of the deceased assessee against the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (‘Commissioner’) whereby the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the legal heirs have not been brought on record, and the appeal could not have been filed by the deceased person. The two-Member Bench of George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member), stated that the notice in respect of deceased assessee was to be served on legal heirs first and it was after that the legal heir so specified and brought on record, would represent on behalf of the deceased assessee. The Tribunal observed that no action was taken by the Assessing Officer to issue fresh notice in the name of the legal heir. Thus, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued to assessee under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1861 and other consequential assessment orders. Read More HEREAssessee’s income for tax assessment cannot be clubbed with minor daughter’s share of sale proceeds, deposited as per Court’s order: ITAT
In the present appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Commissioner’), whereby the Assessing Officer’s decision to club the income arising from the share of assessee’s minor daughter’s with the assessee’s income was upheld, S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member, allowed the appeal and stated that the assessee could not decide the utilization of his minor daughter’s share of sale proceeds, as it was deposited as per Court’s order and it is impossible to club the same with the assessee’s income. The Tribunal stated that the addition made in the income of the assessee with reference to assessee’s minor daughter’s share was not justified and thus, it was deleted. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of brokerage expenses, recognizing the standard industry practice and accepting the assessee’s explanation. Read More HERE
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
No Financial Creditor status with invalid Debt Assignment: NCLAT sets aside initiation of CIRP under Section 7 IBC
In the present case, Company appeals were filed by the suspended director of Shaila Clubs and Resorts (P) Ltd.-Corporate Debtor and Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank-the Cooperative Bank challenging the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (‘Adjudicating authority’) which admitted Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) application filed by Savannah Lifestyle (P) Ltd. (Respondent 1). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), set aside the impugned order stating that the admission of application under Section 7 IBC was based on the debt assignment as recorded in minutes of settlement. The claim of debt assignment having been held to be unlawful, there was no right in Respondent 1 claim to be Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor. Read More HERE
EPFO stakeholder claims based on assessment order post liquidation commencement date inadmissible: NCLAT, New Delhi
In the present case, a company appeal was filed by the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization (‘Appellant’), challenging the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (‘Adjudicating Authority’), which had rejected an interim application seeking directions to release the payment of Provident Fund dues in light of Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) read with Section 11 and 17B of the Employees Provident Funds and [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal, stating that as per Regulation 16(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (‘2016 Regulations’), a stakeholder claim could be filed as on the liquidation commencement date. In present case, the claim had been filed based on the assessment order by the Appellant subsequent to the liquidation commencement date, thus inadmissible. Read More HERE
Affidavit confirms settlement between Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor; NCLAT closes Section 9 IBC proceedings
In the present case, a company appeal was filed challenging the order dated 3-4-2024 (‘Impugned order’) passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which had admitted the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) filed by the Operational Creditor (Respondent 1). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), disposed of the appeal, stating that the issue of a pre-existing dispute had been raised but was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Both the Corporate Debtor (Appellant) and Respondent 1 had filed affidavits which confirmed that they had entered into a settlement, which was taken on record. Thus, the application under Section 9 of the IBC was closed. Read More HERE
Securities Exchange Board of India
All partners have unlimited liability for acts of partnership firm irrespective of their role or profit share: SEBI
The principle issue for determination in the present case was whether the Noticee was liable as a partner of Prowise Capital for the violation of Section 12(1) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’) read with Regulation 3(1) of the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 (‘2013 Regulation’), and Regulation 4(2)(k) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market), 2003 (‘PFUTP Regulations’), and if so, what was the quantum of monies that she would be jointly and severally liable to refund the investors. Ananth Narayan G (Whole Time Member) stated that since Prowise Capital is a partnership firm and all partners have unlimited liability for the acts of firm, regardless of the amount of profit or loss they individually derive. Accordingly, irrespective of their role or the extent of profit earned, every partner, including the Noticee, was liable for the acts of the firm. Thus, SEBI directed the Noticee to refund the monies monies received during her partnership period jointly and severally, with Prowise Capital and its other partners. Read More HERE