VLCC failed to deliver on their promise by not conducting the courses as per the agreed terms. Furthermore, their suggestion to adjust the course fees against the enrolment of a relative was found to be unfair and contrary to consumer protection principles by DCDRC.
“The authorities rejected petitioner’s refund claim by mentioning that payments in respect of some of the invoices are received in advance, but respondents have not referred to any particular instance where payments in respect of any invoices are received prior to the date of invoices.”
A pre-deposit does not partake the character of a tax or duty. Those are sums which are deposited by an assessed solely for the purposes of pursuing the remedy of appeal.
Calcutta High Court observed that “…inaction and ‘shifting the blame game' by one authority to another is highly deprecated by this court.”
NCLT seeks response from respondents to the application for refunds to passengers under Section 60(5) of IBC.
Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Allahabad High Court's judgment to the extent it directs refund of the fee paid to ex-students, till the next date of hearing.
The Delhi High Court held that Ernst and Young Ltd. is not an ‘intermediary’ under the IGST Act, as it does not arranges or facilitates services to overseas EY entities from the third parties but only renders services to them.
Kerala High Court observed that when the suit is dismissed on finding that it is barred by law, the court fees cannot be refunded.
CESTAT states that cancelled flat bookings amount to non-performance of service,Held that Service tax is not applicable if no service is rendered.
“When series of decisions of Constitutional Courts are available then the Principle of Judicial discipline cast a duty on me to follow those and nothing else”, observed the Tribunal.
Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by an Additional District Judge for reimbursement of his treatment charges during
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Bench of S.M. Kanitkar (Presiding Member) and Binoy Kumar (Member) while deliberating upon
The Central Board of Direct Taxes has notified Income-tax (26th Amendment) Rules, 2022 to amend Income-tax Rules, 1962. The amendment
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Debangsu Basak and Bibhas Ranjan De, JJ. disposed of a appeal which was directed against
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora JJ. disposed the petition and directed the respondents to
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ., affirmed the impugned order of
Calcutta High Court: Md. Nizamuddin, J. decided on a petition which was filed challenging the impugned order of the appellate commissioner confirming
Supreme Court: While dealing with the scope of Section 12 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, bench of MR Shah*
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) dismissed the application filed by the Revenue (CCE & ST,
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 4