Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If and only if, the service provider discharges its onus of showing that the service was availed, in fact for a commercial purpose, does the onus shift back to the complainant to show that the service was obtained exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment.”
“Promotional trailers are unilateral and are only meant to encourage a viewer to purchase the ticket to the movie, which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer by itself is not an offer and neither intends to nor can create a contractual relationship.”
DCDRC also held that in order to keep a check on unruly service providers such as Uber, who commit breach of commitments at the nick of time, they are required to be dealt with heavy hands and as such they must be made to deposit at least Rs.10,000 as compensation in Consumer Welfare Fund of the Chandigarh District Forum.
The High Court has also observed that the Service Tax Department cannot invoke the extended period on the sole ground of omission as the same can be invoked only when that there is a deliberate intention to evade payment of tax.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While deciding upon the instant complaint concerning alleged unfair trade practice followed by Flipkart of tampering
Supreme Court settled the issue of whether “body corporate” is excluded from the definition of “consulting engineer” under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 prior to the amendment in 2005.
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., refused to interfere in the interim arbitral award whereby the sole arbitrator had allowed certain claims of
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the denial order
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) allowed appeals directed against the common impugned order passed by