News
Substitution of assets attached by the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA: SC
07 July 2025
In a recent case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order (‘Order’) , allowing the substitution of provisionally attached assets with unencumbered, marketable commercial units offered by the Petitioner subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.
Refund of IGST on exports – Rule 96(10) stands omitted prospectively but is not applicable to pending proceedings
01 July 2025
The Gujarat High Court has held that Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would stand omitted prospectively but would not be applicable to pending proceedings/cases where final adjudication has not taken place. Number of assessees were represented by Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys here.
Discharge of a person in predicate offence is not a bar on investigation under PMLA
10 June 2025
In this case[1], the Petitioner was implicated in offence of commission of offence of illicit manufacturing, marketing and transportation of a cough syrup under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) through two complaints filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (‘NCB’) before the Special NDPS Court, Jammu (‘Trial Court’).
Supplies to merchant exporters qualify as ‘export of goods’ – GST Council urged to consider exempting compensation cess on such supplies
22 May 2025
The Gujarat High Court has observed that supplies to merchant exporters also qualify as ‘export of goods’. It was thus held that the assessee manufacturer is not liable to pay compensation cess at the rate of 160% on the supply of goods, i.e. branded tobacco products, to the merchant exporters for exports.
Patents – Section 3(b) is the intent principle and not the effect or harm principle
15 May 2025
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the rejection of grant of patent for an invention titled ‘A device and method for generating and delivery of a Nicotine Aerosol to a user’, where the invention provided a parallel design device that delivers nicotine to the users without burning or heating of tobacco and/or nicotine.
NCLAT cannot condone delay in filing appeal beyond 15 days Introduction
08 May 2025
Recently, the Supreme Court vide its Order dated 7 May 2025 passed in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee and Ors. in C.A. No. 408 of 2023, while allowing the appeal, reiterated that the NCLAT cannot condone any delay in filing an appeal beyond the period of 15 days as stipulated under the statute.
No interest and penalty on IGST on imports, before amendment to Customs Tariff Section 3(12)
24 April 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that interest and penalty are not leviable on IGST not paid on imports, before the amendment to Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The Court relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Intersection of Design and Copyright laws – Supreme Court of India formulates two-pronged approach
21 April 2025
In a dispute involving intersection of copyright and design laws, the Supreme Court of India has formulated a two-pronged approach to solve the conundrum caused by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, to ascertain whether a work is qualified to be protected by the Designs Act, 2000.
No IGST under Section 3(7) of Customs Tariff Act on reimports after repairs abroad
19 March 2025
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.
Patents – Non-compliance of disclosure norms under Sections 10(4) and (5) leading to non-patentability under Section 3(c)
17 March 2025
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.