General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC) faces a ₹138 Cr GST liability, following a tax demand from the CGST & Central Excise authorities. The demand relates to alleged tax short payments and Input Tax Credit issues from 2017 to 2021. GIC plans to challenge the order and file an appeal.
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL) has been issued a demand order for ₹7.38 crore by tax authorities concerning the non-reversal of CGST input tax credit. The company plans to challenge the order before the appropriate appellate authority.
KLA advised Aqaseem on a SAR 500 million Sukuk Issuance Programme approved by the Saudi Capital Market Authority, marking a key achievement in Saudi Arabia's corporate and investment banking sector.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. has been penalized over ₹10 crores by tax authorities due to a dispute over the Goods and Services Tax (GST) classification of its instrument clusters.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled in favor of Secure Meters Limited regarding the classification of communication modules used in smart meters, overturning an earlier decision by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Saregama India Limited (SIL), affirming its copyright over the iconic Tamil song "En Iniya Pon Nilave." The Court barred Vels Films International from using the recreated version in its movie Aghathiyaa, reinforcing the importance of copyright compliance in the entertainment industry.
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advised Tata Electronics on securing CCI approval for acquiring a majority stake in Pegatron India, strengthening TEPL’s market presence.
Ghadi, a detergent manufacturer, was granted permanent relief by the Delhi District Court in a trademark and copyright infringement case against a competitor. The Court issued a permanent injunction and awarded damages after the defendant used a deceptive trademark and tagline that resembled Ghadi's.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Registrar’s refusal to register the "KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT" device mark. The Court held that the Registrar overlooked the petitioner’s prior registration and emphasized the importance of assessing the mark as a whole.
