Karnataka High Court held that Open Purchase Orders are only standing offers and do not constitute a confirmed ‘Agreement to sell’ and movement of goods are mere stock transfers.
HC held that there is no change in legal position i.e. scope and ambit of intermediary services under service tax regime vis-a-vis the GST regime hence Master Services Sub-contracting agreement which continues to operate since 2013 cannot be treated differently at different period.
Orissa High Court held that Asst. Commissioner is not competent authority to accord sanction for launching prosecution against the appellant being a tax assistant. Accordingly, any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio.
Delhi High Court held that Registrar of Trade Marks has no power to condone delay in the filing of an application seeking review beyond expiry of one month from date of decision of which review is sought.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that the provisions contained in SARFAESI Act will prevail over Rules of 2015. Accordingly, the demand of transfer fee made by the CSIDC is not sustainable in law.
Delhi High Court on the issue of invention under Patents Act, 1970 observed that one of the sure tests in analysing the existence of inventive step would also be the time gap between the prior art document and the invention under consideration. If a long time has passed since the prior art was published and a simple change resulted in unpredictable advantages which no one had thought of for a long time, the Court would tilt in favour of holding that the invention is not obvious.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that bail granted as co-morbodities of the petitioner falls in the exception of being sick as carved out in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Delhi High Court held that Advertisement, Market and business Promotion (AMP) expenses incurred cannot be termed as an international transaction in the absence of any provision for the same in the agreement with Associated Enterprise.
Delhi High Court held that the interim moratorium under Section 96 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in respect of one of the guarantors would not ipso facto apply against a co-guarantor.
Madras High Court held that for contract entered prior to 01.07.2017 under National Highways and Public Works Department differential tax liability is to be computed as per Government Orders and any recovery affected from the contractor contrary to the methodology will be refunded.
