Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to a CA accused of forgery and GST evasion through false invoices from non-existent entities.
Delhi High Court held that Rule 8 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 is not ultra vires to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court while considering the application under Trademarks Act have observed that it is well settled that a composite trademark is not to be dissected to determine whether there is any deceptive similarity with the impugned trademark and comparison has to be by taking the rival marks as a whole.
Delhi High Court’s landmark judgment in Shalini Mittal Vs ITO case, quashing the income tax notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2018-19.
Analysis of Delhi High Court ruling in Frequent Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Goods And Service Tax Department. Emphasizes the need for clarity in Show Cause Notices for GST registration cancellation.
In law, look out circular is a circular letter used by authorities of India to check whether a travelling person is wanted by police. It is open to search for absconding criminals and also to prevent and monitor effectively entry or exit of anyone who maybe sought by law enforcement or authorities.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the substitution of Section 36 of the A&C Act with effect from 23.10.2015, the pendency of an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act is no longer a bar for enforcement of an arbitral award.
Delhi High Court held that high-powered body constituted by Government for appointment of top management posts in various Central Public Sector Enterprise cannot be said to have been acted illegally in preferring the Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants for the post of Director (Finance).
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court have given observations on the issue of unstamped arbitration agreement. It has been held that an arbitration agreement, which is unstamped, does not exist and an unstamped contract, containing an arbitration agreement, would not exist as it has no existence in law and it has been observed that such agreement would be impounded under Section 33 of the Stamp Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that for refusal of Registration under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, it would have to be shown that the marks themselves are confusingly similar to each other, and that, owing to the similarity in the marks and the goods and services which they cover, there is a likelihood of confusion among the public, or a likelihood of the public believing the existence of an association between the marks.
