The Competition Commission of India held that higher hospital charges alone do not establish abuse of dominance without proof that prices were excessive and unfair. The case against the hospital was closed for lack of sufficient evidence.
The CCI found that the investigation failed to compare hospital charges with similarly placed hospitals and relied on inadequate benchmarks such as standalone labs and hotels. The Commission therefore held that unfair pricing was not conclusively proved.
The CCI held that higher prices charged by a private super-specialty hospital for tests, medicines, and consumables did not automatically amount to abuse of dominance. The Commission found no sufficient evidence proving that the pricing was both excessive and unfair.
The High Court held that disputes involving factual examination and merits under Section 74 of the CGST Act must ordinarily be pursued through statutory appeals. It ruled that neither lack of jurisdiction nor violation of natural justice was established to justify bypassing alternate remedies.
Pune ITAT remanded the matter after the assessee explained that responses meant for the assessment appeal were inadvertently uploaded in the penalty appeal portal.
NCLT Indore held that dissolution under Section 54 of the IBC was justified after all assets of the corporate debtor were liquidated and proceeds distributed according to Section 53 priorities. The Tribunal found no remaining assets or pending proceedings.
The Rajasthan High Court held that refusal to hear the appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice where cancellation of GST registration impacted business continuity and livelihood. The Court exercised writ jurisdiction to condone the delay.
The Gauhati High Court held that a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the mandatory notice under Section 73(1) of the AGST Act. The GST demand order was quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making a 10% purchase disallowance. The addition was deleted as it was based only on assumptions derived from portal data.
NCLT Mumbai held that ongoing One-Time Settlement discussions cannot defeat insolvency proceedings when debt and default are admitted. The Tribunal observed that the corporate debtor repeatedly failed to deposit the required upfront OTS amount.
