The Delhi High Court has held that Notification No. 36/2021-Cus., amending Notification No. 45/2017-Cus., insofar as it purports to levy an additional levy over and above the IGST imposed under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, by adding the words ‘….tax and cess’ is unconstitutional and ultra vires the IGST Act. Quashing the notification to the aforesaid extent, the Court also declared the Explanation to clause (d), as introduced by the said notification, as invalid. Consequently, CBIC Circular No. 16/2021-Cus. was also quashed.

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Controller’s order refusing a patent application under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, as certain claims of the application were too broad and thus would also cover naturally existing variants of the microorganism. Further, according to the Controller, the claims were not sufficiently disclosed as required under Sections 10(4) and 10(5) of the Patents Act.

The Madras High Court has held that the particular High Court referred to in Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (relating to rectification of a trademark) is the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Registrar of Trade Marks, who made the entry, rectification of which is being sought.