The case examined whether online learning services involve technical services. The Court ruled that the platform only facilitated access to content and did not provide technical services. The decision clarifies tax treatment of digital platforms.
The issue involved reopening based on alleged share transfer through a loan structure. The Court held reassessment invalid as the foundational fact was incorrect.
Interest on customs refund was not automatic and depends on whether there was delay in processing attributable to the department, while granting relief in cases where reassessment and refund were delayed and denying it where refunds were issued within the statutory period.
The Court declined to interfere with the GST demand order as the petitioner had not availed the appellate remedy. It emphasized that disputes relating to adjudication must be addressed through statutory channels. The ruling reinforces the primacy of appellate remedies in tax matters.
The Court held that the secured creditor’s rights were limited to project receivables and did not extend to management or contractual control. It ruled that the creditor could not challenge termination of the contract. The decision clarifies limits of secured creditor rights under IBC and SARFAESI.
The Court addressed whether additional remuneration taxed at the firm level can be taxed again in the hands of the partner. It directed CBDT to clarify the issue and stayed recovery proceedings. The ruling highlights concerns over potential double taxation.
The petition challenges the validity of a cess law on grounds of lack of legislative competence and arbitrariness. The Court has not ruled yet and has granted time for further submissions, keeping the issue open.
The issue involved an additional tax demand on unbilled revenue. The Court found that the authority failed to consider the reply and remanded the matter for fresh review.
The issue concerned release of ₹58 lakh seized during GST search. The Court disposed of the petition after authorities agreed to release the amount within ten days, while allowing further legal action if required.
The Court declined interference as proceedings were already initiated by both departments. Petitioners were directed to respond to notices through proper channels.
