The competition regulator found a prima facie case that large-scale cancellations followed by higher fares may amount to abuse of dominance. A detailed investigation has been ordered to examine unfair pricing and restriction of services.
The tribunal held that a debt recovery tribunal cannot reject a counter-claim after a binding appellate remand. Orders bypassing affirmed appellate directions and natural justice were set aside.
The Court held that delay in filing Form 10-IC could not be rejected where the return form itself lacked a functional option field. Substantive compliance with Section 115BAA was found sufficient to grant the concessional tax rate.
The Court held that once late fees are imposed for delayed filing of returns under Section 47, a general penalty under Section 125 cannot be added. The ruling clarifies the mutually exclusive application of these penalty provisions.
The advance ruling held that phosphatidylserine derived from soy lecithin qualifies as a phosphoaminolipid under Heading 2923. The product was classified under CTI 2923 2090 based on its chemical structure and composition.
While following binding High Court precedent on limitation, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to revive the matter depending on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that directions to modify tax software had no nexus with the individual dispute. Relief granted to the assessee under Section 205 was left undisturbed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as withdrawn after permitting the taxpayer to pursue a statutory appeal. The ruling reinforces that GST disputes should follow the appeal route under Section 107.
Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable where the GST Act provides a complete appellate framework. The petitioner was relegated to pursue the remedy under Section 107.
The tribunal held that a Section 9 insolvency application filed years after an arbitral award attained finality was barred by limitation. Issuing a demand notice could not revive a time-barred claim.
