Tussle for Control of “Services” – Ultimate Saga of Never-Ending Battle of Federalism Between Union and GNCTD
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
services
Central Government notifies NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023; Lieutenant Governor to get control of ‘Services'
On 19-5-2023, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 giving back
Explained| Supreme Court judgment settling tussle between Delhi Govt and Centre
In the spirit of cooperative federalism, the Union must exercise its powers within the boundaries created by the Constitution. NCTD, having a sui generis federal model, must be allowed to function in the domain charted for it by the Constitution. The Union and NCTD share a unique federal relationship. It does not mean that NCTD is subsumed in the unit of the Union merely because it is not a “State”.
[Delhi Govt. vs LG] Delhi Government has administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in NCTD: Supreme Court
Supreme Court said that NCTD like other states also represents the representative form of government, the involvement of Union of India in the administration of NCTD is limited by Constitution provisions and any further expansion will be contrary to the constitutional scheme of governance.
Landmark Judgments on Banking Laws by the SC and HC’s in 2022 (RDDB, SARFAESI, RBI, BRA Enactments) Part II
by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Prakriti††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
Surrender of right to use spectrum before commencement of Finance Act, 2016, not chargeable to service tax; Delhi High Court sets aside service tax demand of Rs. 56 crores against MTNL
The Delhi High Court set aside the demand for service tax of Rs. 56 crores against MTNL holding that the surrender of any right to use the spectrum before 14-5-2016, the date on which the Finance Act, 2016 came into force, will not be chargeable to service tax.
Services provided by EY India to overseas EY entities are not “intermediary services”; Delhi High Court directs processing of ITC refund applications filed by EY India
The Delhi High Court held that Ernst and Young Ltd. is not an ‘intermediary’ under the IGST Act, as it does not arranges or facilitates services to overseas EY entities from the third parties but only renders services to them.
Delhi High Court denies regularisation request of a messenger boy of a Bank for not being appointed through a regular process
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court wherein it was held that since the messenger boy of a Bank was unable to establish that he moved an application for absorption in the service in pursuance of the Bipartite Settlement, therefore, he was not entitled to regularisation of service. Further, the Dehi High Court held that regularisation was not a matter of right and therefore, this Court could not direct the respondent Bank to regularize the services of the messenger boy.
DCDRC | Why Uber India was held liable for the cab driver whose negligence caused the complainant to miss her flight to Chennai?
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane: In a significant decision delivered in August over a complaint alleging deficiency of
When does a vessel support service qualify as ‘Export of Services’? AAR explains
Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling: T.G. Venkatesh, Additional Commissioner, and K. Latha, Joint Commissioner held that concerning vessel support services provided
Can Lease Rental come under the purview of ‘Operational Debt’? NCLAT elucidates
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan J., Chairperson, Rakesh Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar, JJ,
Can service tax be levied on services provided by club to its members? CESTAT answers
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member),
Can employee claim Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity where a criminal appeal in corruption case is pending against him and sentence is suspended? SC answers
Supreme Court: In an interesting case where the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., was to answer whether
Consumer Protection | Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers
Bombay High Court: Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not
NCDRC | To determine pecuniary jurisdiction of District, State or National Commission which value of goods or services has to be considered? Commission elaborates
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member), held that “…for detrmining the
J&K HC | Failure to appear before Screening Committee would not lead to non-inclusion in the Casual Labors list
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. disposed of the writ petition on the grounds that a similar matter was
Chh AAR | Amount payable by supplier but incurred by service recipient, is includible in value of supply of goods or services
Authority for Advance Ruling, Chhattisgarh: The Members comprising of Kalpana Tiwari, Joint Commissioner of State Tax and Rajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Commissioner
Central Government : “Services” engaged in “Banking Industry” with the status of “Public Utility Service” be extended with the same for a period of 6 months
S.O. 1614(E) — Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that public interest so requires that the services engaged in the Banking industry,
Utt HC | Question regarding “instrumentality of state” cannot be decided in intra-court appeal
Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J. dismissed a petition for it being raised for
Permission granted to devotees by religious organizations, in lieu of money, does not amount to “services” under Consumer Protection Act
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Single Judge Bench of V.K. Jain, J., allowed a revision petition filed against the order