abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Madras High Court M/S.Edutech India (P)Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 November, 2024 T.C.(R)Nos.38 & 39 of 2021 Reserved On 29.10.2024 Pronounced On 25.11.2024 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN T.C.(Revision) Nos.38 & 39 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.20339 & 20344 of 2021 M/s.Edutech India (P)Ltd. Rep.by R.Natarajan Manager Finance & Accounts ... Petitioner in both TCs. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Now Known as Joint Commissioner ( CT) Chennai (Central) Division Chennai 600 006. ... Respondent in both T.Cs. Prayer in both T.Cs.: These petitions have been filed to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) Chennai in S.T.A.No.175 of 2007 dated 02.08.2014. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/43 T.C.(R)Nos.38 & 39 of 2021 For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Ravikumar (in both TCs.) For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran (in both TCs.) Government Advocate COMMON ORDER (Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN,J.) These Tax Revision Cases are directed to against the impugned Common order dated 02.08.2014 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Chennai in S.T.A.Nos.175 and 317 of 2007. 2. By the common impugned orders dated 02.08.2014, the Appellate Tribunal has allowed Sales Tax Appeal in STA.Nos.175 & 317 of 2007 filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the orders dated 16.02.2006 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in A.P.Nos.285 & 284 of 2005 dated 16.02.2006 relating to the Assessment years 2001 02 and 200203. 3. These Tax Case Revisions were admitted on the following substantial questions of law were framed for being answered by this Court : https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/43 T.C.(R)Nos.38 & 39 of 2021 i) Whether the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) Chennai in STA 317/2014 dated 02/08/2014 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act? ii) Whether the tribunal had properly considered the findings given by the Fist Appellate Authority, while passing the impugned order?OTJ.TV his finding that "the software Development and Computer? iii)Whether the tribunal was justified in allowing a disputed turnover of Rs.2,59,34,647/ at 4% when the First Appellate Authority had given Consultancy Service is not taxable and it does not fall under the category of goods. It is service contract not involving transfer of property in goods or intellectual property. Supply of technical skill and expertise which is not a licensed software either within the State or in interstate is not a s
Delhi High Court Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 January, 2021 $~A2 to A5 * Date of Decision: 04.01.2021 + ITA 247/2019 MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT LTD .... Appellant Through: Mr. Nageshwar Rao, Mr. Sandeep Karhail and Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel. + ITA 357/2019 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel. versus MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nageshwar Rao, Mr. Sandeep Karhail and Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocates. + ITA 652/2019 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel. versus MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 1 of 17 Through: Mr. Nageshwar Rao, Mr. Sandeep Karhail and Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocates. + ITA 710/2019 MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Nageshwar Rao, Mr. Sandeep Karhail and Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA Order SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral) 1. This common order shall dispose of the aforenoted appeals preferred by both the Assessee as well as the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT') with respect to Assessment Years 201112 and 201213. For the sake of convenience, the appeals pertaining to each assessment year are being dealt with separately. ITA 247/2019 & ITA 357/2019 2. The appeals of the Revenue and the Assessee are numbered as ITA No. 357/2019 and ITA No. 247/2019 respectively. These crossappeals impugn ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 2 of 17 the common order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the learned ITAT, New Delhi in respect of AY 201112, in ITA No. 1479/Del/2016, filed by the Assessee and ITA No. 691/Del/2016 filed by the Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order'). The aforesaid ITAs assailed the order dated 16.01.2016 of the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO'). 3. Briefly stated, the factual matrix giving rise to the present appeals is as follows: 3.1. That Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee') is a private limited company which was set up in India in May 1998 and is a subsidiary of Microsoft Ireland Research Ltd. (99.99% shareholding); the ultimate parent company being Microsoft Corporation, USA. The Assessee is engaged, inter alia, in rendering software development services and information technology enabled services. 3.2. The Assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2011, declaring an income of Rs. 2,01,64,26,819/ and same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under Section 143(2) was is
Delhi High Court Mtnl Executive Welfare Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 April, 2012 * % Judgment reserved on: 10.4.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 17.4.2012 + W.P.(C) 2251522518/2005 & CM No.1469214694/2005, 6787/2006, 7955/2006, 15087/2008 & 1536/2012 Indian Telecom Service Association & Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2221722257/2005 & CMs No.14646/2005, 14648/2005 Arun Gupta And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2225822463/2005 & CMs No.14652/2005 & 14655/2005 Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 22783/2005 S.K.Talware ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents W.P(C) 1238012382/2006 Page 1 of 26 + W.P.(C) 2278422788/2005 & CM No.16074/2005 Pushpender Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278922847/2005 & CMs No.12817/2006, 13732/2006 & 14503/2006 Akhilesh Trivedi ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 23093/2005 Rakesh Kumar Tripathi ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2312423126/2005 Awadhesh K. Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents W.P(C) 1238012382/2006 Page 2 of 26 + W.P.(C) 23655/2005 Gajender Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1238012382/2006 & CMs No.9467/2006, 11074/2008 & 14543/2008 MTNL Executive Welfare Association ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Another ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 17618/2006 & CMs No. 1458814589/2006 & 170/2007 A.K.Sharma ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3414/2007 & CM No.63966397/2007 Vinay Saran ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VSR Krishna and Ms. Swati Sharma in WP(C) 2221522257/2005 Mr. Yasoban Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Mr. Ashish W.P(C) 1238012382/2006 Page 3 of 26 Sindhu and Mr. Arvind Tiwari in WP(C) 22789/2005 Mr. A.K.Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Sindhu in WP(C) 22783/2005, 22784/2005, 22789/2005, 23093/2005, 23124/2005 & 23655/2005 For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V.Niren, Mr Prasouk Jain, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Pratap for UoI Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra for MTNL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to
Madras High Court M/S. Statue Of Unity Area Development ... vs Micro And Small Exterprise on 30 September, 2024 W.P.No.24325 of 2024 DATED: 30.09.2024 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.24325 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.26571 & 26572 of 2024 M/s. Statue of Unity Area Development and Tourism Governance Authority, Administrative Building, Ekta Nagar, Kevadia, Narmada District, Gujarat – 393 151. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Rakesh Kumar Narayanlal Raval ...Petitioner Vs 1. Micro and Small Exterprise Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 032. 2. Tri Electric Private Limited, Plot No.D5, SIPCOT, Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur – 601 201, Rep by Parthasarathi Krishnaswami. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order in Reference No.MSEFC/CR/376/2022, Online Application https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 14 W.P.No.24325 of 2024 No.UDYAMTN240021740/M/00003 dated 12.05.2023 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Ms.Deepika Murali For Respondents For R1 : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate For R2 : Mr. K.P.Sanjeev Kumar For Ms.N.Madhusruthi ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the first respondent dated 12.05.2023, thereby directed the petitioner to pay principal amount of Rs.91,53,610/ with compound interest with monthly rests, at three times the bank rate, as stipulated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “MSMED Act”) 2. The petitioner floated a tender dated 21.08.2021 in relation to the supply, installation and comprehensive maintenance of battery operated vehicle (Electric carts – 25 Nos.) at Kevadia, Gujarat. As per the tender condition, a prebid meeting was scheduled on 25.08.2021, to provide bidders with information regarding request for proposal and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 14 W.P.No.24325 of 2024 project requirements and to provide each bidder with an opportunity to seek clarification. Subsequently, a corrigendum tender was issued on 27.08.2021, clarifying the procedural and financial terms and conditions and the eligibility criteria of the tender. The second respondent submitted lowest bid for a total price of Rs.2,17,74,970/ and after further negotiations, by the letter of acceptance dated 29.09.2021, the second respondent was awarded the tender for the reduced price at the rate of Rs.2,17,50,000/. Thereafter, the second respondent was called upon to submit the performance bank guarantee/security deposit for an amount equal to 5% of the
Judgment 1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the petition under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the Exparte award dated 23.09.2019 passed by Ld. Arbitrator. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2002, the respondent has invited tender for the construction of erection and commissioning work of 220 kv. D/C AkrimotaNakhtrana, line for Gujarat Electricity Board on 28.09.2002, the letter of award was issued in favour of the petitioner for a contract price of Rs. 1,07,80153/ which is to be completed within eight months i.e. 31.03.2003, however, the work was completed by 28.02.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner/claimant sent legal notice raising a demand of Rs. 42,36,380/ along with interest @ 18 % per annum. Pursuant to which, on 21.02.2008, the sole Arbitrator Sh. M. C. Sharma was appointed for settlement of dispute and both the parties filed their respective of claims and statement of defence, and arbitration proceedings continued. Then, on 10.09.2014 as the previous Arbitrator resigned and Sh. K.P. Sharma was appointed as the Arbitrator. On 14.07.2017, the petitioner accorded his consent for appointment of Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings, thereafter commenced and parties are directed to file additional documents, arguments heard, but the petitioner/claimant stopped appearing therefore, proceeded exparte on 24.09.2018 and impugned award was passed on 23.09.2019. OMP (COMM) 135/19 Dated. 31.08.2023 Page 2 of 28 M/s Chandulal Mohanlal Majithia Vs. The National Building Construction Co. (NBCC) 3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator is the basic requirement, however, no official disclosure was given by the Sole Arbitrator. As far as, respondent no. 2 (K.P.N. Swami) is concerned, he was appointed on 10.09.2014 after Ld. Arbitrator Sh. M.C. Sharma resigned on 23.08.2014, and it was his legal duty to disclose and file fresh statement of disclosure as per section 12 of the Act. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is argued by the counsel for the respondent that prior to the amendment 2015, the sitting officer of NBCC were not legally barred to be appointed as Arbitrator, however, in Union of India Vs. Singh Builders Syndicate, 2009 (4) SCC 523, Apex Court suggested that the Govt., statutory authority should considered phasing out arbitration clauses providing for appointment of serving officer and encouragement of professionalism in arbitration. The judgment of Hon'ble Culcutta High court as relied by the respondent i.e. West Bengal Housing Board Vs. M/s Abhishek Construction is not applicable because the petitioner has raised objection vide letter dated 30.08.2018. There is no applicability of section 4 i.e. doctrine of waiver also, as the objection raised by the petitioner regarding various grievances are not covered in any of the situation raised. The petitioner has raised objection over biasness against Arbitrator vide letter dated 30.08.2018. The Arbitrator has changed the venue on 14 and 15 September 2018 without prior consent and thereby petitioner unable to present his case properly. Ld. Arbitrator undermined party autonomy
Delhi High Court Rmc Project Management ... vs Whizlabs Software Private Limited And ... on 21 August, 2023 * Reserved on: 26.05.2023 Date of decision: 21.08.2023 + CS(COMM) 124/2018 RMC PROJECT MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, LLC ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Shikhil Suri, Ms.Madhu Suri, Ms.Jyoti Suri, Ms.Mahima Aggarwal, Ms.Wamika Chadha & Ms.Nidhi Kapoor, Advs. versus WHIZLABS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shivam Sharma & Ms.Sudakshina Prasad, Advs. JUDGMENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for the following reliefs: ―(a) A decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their employees, subordinates, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them from infringing in any manner the Plaintiff's copyright in the said PM FASTrack software and literary works comprised in the said PM FASTrack software and from reproducing/copying/illegally using or substantially reproducing/copying/illegally using the PM FASTrack software and any part thereof and any of the literary work in the said PM FASTrack software and from issuing, circulating, distributing or in any manner disseminating infringing copies of the Whizlabs Software to any person, third party Signature Not Verified or the public; Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:22.08.2023 10:58:16 CS (COMM) 124/2018 Page 1 of 43 (b) A decree of delivery up, against the Defendants, their employees, subordinates, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them, for destruction/deletion all of the Defendant's Whizlabs software related manuals or documents which are a reproduction of or copy or a substantial reproduction or a copy of any of the manuals, documents or contents of the PM FASTrack software and literary work in the said PM FASTrack software belonging to the Plaintiff and infringing copies of the Defendant's Whizlabs software; (c) A decree of payment of Rs.50,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) towards rendition of a true and faithful accounts of all the profits earned by defendants by using, transferring, divulging, selling, distributing the Whizlabs software, or reproducing/copying or substantially reproducing/copying in any manner any of the PM FASTrack software and the literary work in the said PM FASTrack software belonging to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants be further ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff such amount as ma
Delhi High Court Macpower Cnc Machines Limited vs Union Of India, Through Development ... on 24 December, 2020 Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 1649 * Judgment reserved on: 05.10.2020 % Judgment delivered on: 24.12.2020 + W.P.(C) 3942/2020 and C.M. Nos. 14146/2020, 24753/2020 & 24756/2020 MACPOWER CNC MACHINES LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amar Dave, Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Mr. Updendra Sai & Ms.Jasleen Bindra, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MSME) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Vikas Mahajan, CGSC for the respondent/ UOI. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the Summary of Bid Evaluation of Package 41 dated 05.06.2020, whereby the petitioner‟s technical bids in respect of Lots 4,5 and 6 of Package 41 have been held to be "technically nonresponsive but commercially responsive" and, consequently, the tender in question has not been awarded to the petitioner, despite the petitioner being the lowest bidder in respect of the said Lots. The petitioner seeks a direction that it be declared technically Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) NO. 3942/2020 Page 1 of 96 Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:24.12.2020 16:10 responsive in respect of its bids for Lots 4,5 and 6, and for a direction that the respondents should award the tender to the petitioner in respect of Lots 4, 5 and 6. The petitioner has sought certain other reliefs consequential in nature to the main reliefs sought by it, as aforesaid. Petitioner's Submissions 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company is a reputed and one of the fastest growing Computer Numerical Control (CNC) Machine manufacturers in India. The petitioner claims that it is positioned at Number 1 amongst the top 5 manufacturers. The petitioner states that it has successfully delivered and commissioned various kinds of CNC machines to Government PSUs like DRDO, HAL, ISRO, CIPET etc. The petitioner manufactures CNC Turning Machines for purposes of training at heavy duty training centers, CNC Turnmill center with 5 Axis with Sub spindle, Vertical Turret Lathe (VTL), Vertical machining center (VMC), Horizontal machining center (HMC) and CNC grinding centre. The petitioner states that it has successfully bid for various projects, and has been awarded several projects by the Government in the past. The petitioner claims to have supplied approximately 5,000 machines till date in various industry segments such as Automobiles, Agriculture, Plastics, Defence, Heavy engineering, Tool Room, Education, Aeronautics etc. The petitioner has been granted the High
F.A.No.10/2024 For the Appellants: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate . For the Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. ........................................................................... Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R: Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 23.11.2023 of learned District Commission, Una, Camp at Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.97/2017 titled Satya Devi Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that she had purchased a truck No. HP64A1400, which was financed by opposite parties No.1 and 2. On 23.10.2016 when the vehicle in question was returning from Roorki and was on the way to Bilaspur, the opposite parties/financer through their agents and servants took forcible possession of vehicle in question and after one month the opposite parties/financer left 2 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Satya Devi F.A.No.10/2024 the vehicle on 23.11.2016. Thereafter, again on 28.02.2017 when the vehicle in question was returning from Pinjor and was at place Brahampukhar, District Bilaspur, the agents of the opposite parties again took forcible possession of the vehicle. No order of competent Court was obtained before taking possession of said vehicle from complainant. Complainant was earning Rs.4,000/ per day from said vehicle at the time of taking forcible possession of the vehicle by opposite parties/financer and complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/ per month. Complainant had paid all installments of loan almost timely except few installments, but despite that opposite parties/financer adopted illegal and forcible means and took possession of the vehicle. Legal notice was also issued to opposite parties/financer. There is deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties/financer. Hence, the present complaint. 3 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Satya Devi F.A.No.10/2024 3. The opposite parties/financer resisted and contested the complaint by filing reply and alleged that as per Arbitration Agreement, owner of the vehicle voluntarily surrendered the same as she was chronic defaulter in repayment of loan. Opposite parties/financer never took forcible possession of the vehicle through their servants. Complainant has not paid regular installments of loan account. The loan account balance pending on 10.03.2017 was Rs.18,42,600/ and AFC due was Rs.1,51,367/ with future interest of Rs.10,45,800/ against the complainant. There is no deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties/financer. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made. 4. Rejoinder denying the contents of the reply filed by the opposite parties and reiterating those of the complaint has been filed. 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in 4 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Satya Devi F.A
1. Sutherland Global Services Private Limited 45A, Velacherry Main Road http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt. 16.10.2020 in WA No.53 of 2020 [Asst. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Sutherland Global Services Private Limited] 2 / 135 Vijayanagaram Chennai 600 042. 2. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary State Tax Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 3. The Chairman GSTN, East Wing, World Mark1 4th Floor, Tower B, Aerocity Indira Gandhi International Airport New Delhi 110 037. .. Respondents Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dated 05.09.2019 made in W.P.No.4773 of 2018 on the file of this Court. For Appellants/ Revenue : Ms.Aparna Nandakumar For Respondent1 : Mr.Raghavan Ramabathran For M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran Associates For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.Mohammed Shafhiq Spl. Govt. Pleader JUDGMENT Dr.Vineet Kothari,J The interesting and important question which arises in the present intra Court appeal from the judgment of the learned Single http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt. 16.10.2020 in WA No.53 of 2020 [Asst. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Sutherland Global Services Private Limited] 3 / 135 Judge dat