Cross-border trade plays a vital role in boosting a country’s economic growth. With accelerated globalization, we have observed India emerging as one of the major players in the global supply chain. In the past decade, there has been a substantial rise in cross-border transactions; both in terms of volume and value and this rise has revealed various statutory hurdles in the extant applicable laws governing cross-border trade.
The article discusses the recent circular which is issued by International Finance Services Centres Authority (‘IFSCA’) for imposing an obligation on Authorised FMEs, registered FMEs (Non-Retail) and Registered FMEs (Retail) to maintain a website or a webpage dedicated to their fund management activities in the IFSC.
The article discusses the conceptual foundations of the force of attraction rule, traces its judicial evolution in India, and evaluates the relevance of the doctrine in an era increasingly shaped by source-based taxation and digital nexus rules.
The notification of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 2026 (‘2026 Scheme’) with effect from 1 July 2026, was anticipated to settle and provide clarity on the regulatory framework governing international workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020. However, it has done the opposite in one respect. The 2026 Scheme retains a dedicated framework for international workers and carries forward the substance of the erstwhile Paragraph 83 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 (‘1952 Scheme’) and Paragraph 43A of the EPS, 1995.
Trade remedy measures continue to remain a bulwark for the protection of the domestic industry from unfair imports. With the government’s increasing emphasis on the ‘Make in India’ objective and the Indian economy booming, trade remedy measures retain their importance as an instrument to balance the interests of domestic producers with that of users and importers.
The article notes that given the voluntary and unilateral nature of a grant, there exists ambiguity whether provision of a grant qualifies to be a taxable supply under the GST law, as to qualify as a supply it is essential that a good or service is provided for a consideration. The authors observe that it needs to be examined on case-to-case basis, whether the provision of the grant in a particular arrangement has its strings attached to the service provided and the consideration paid.
The article discusses a recent Delhi HC decision holding that Letters Patent Appeal is allowed in trademark appeals and that a bar on such intra-court appeals as provided under Section 100A of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, do not apply to Letters Patent powers of High Courts with regard to trademark disputes as they are saved by virtue of Sections 4 and 104 of CPC.
The article in this issue of Tax Amicus discusses the recent decision of the Supreme Court wherein the Apex Court has held that the amendments to the Telangana VAT Act, the Gujarat VAT Act and Maharashtra VAT Act, after 1 July 2017 were not correct.
The article discusses the issue of attribution of profits in case of losses at the global level, which has once again gathered spotlight as the Delhi High Court in Hyatt International Southwest Asia Limited has expressed its prima facie disagreement with the decision in Nokia Solutions and has referred the issue to a Larger Bench. Discussing Article 7 of the DTAA and Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules, the authors state that the LB decision will have a major impact.
The article elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, imposing costs of INR 5 lakh on the Plaintiff for having suppressed material facts by way of failing to report that corresponding foreign patents of the suit patent had been invalidated/refused in several foreign jurisdictions.
In a recent decision dated 18 December 2023 , the Division Bench (Two-Judge Bench) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while adjudicating a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the order dated 28 October 2021 passed by the Commercial District Court, Indore and held that a suit for infringement of Geographical Indication tags is maintainable by the Registered Proprietor of the GI tag, even if the Authorised User of the same GI tag is not impleaded as a party.
The article analyses a recent decision of the CJEU and its implications in the background of the Indian data privacy laws. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (‘ DPDP Act ’) will be notified soon and companies involved in processing of personal data for targeted advertising may need to revisit and revise their policies to comply with the law.
The article analyses recent amendments in the Plastic Waste Management Rules. According to the authors, the changes represent the Central Government’s acknowledgement of the gaps in the regulatory framework for plastic waste management. The article in this regard discusses changes like clear distinction being drawn between producers and importers, clarity on applicability of EPR Guidelines to export products, and elimination of conflicting interpretations of labelling requirements, etc.
Dark Patterns can be referred to as the deceptive web or UI designs or patterns commonly used in web based or mobile based platforms, intended to manipulate, or trick the decision of a consumer by deceiving them to do something that is determinantal to his interest and something that the consumer otherwise would not do, compromising consumer’s autonomy, decision-making power, and his privacy. Some of the widely used dark patterns include subscription trap, false urgency, and click and bait.
The concept of ‘restriction’ imposed on export of goods as indicated in the Indian Trade Classification (ITC (HS)) has been the subject matter of judicial interpretation before various forums. The article analyses a recent Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Satyendra Packaging Limited v. Union of India, which has sparked some controversy towards the settled understanding of the issue.
The article discusses a recent Madras HC decision highlighting nuances of applying Section 3(d) in so far as the ‘known substance’ based exclusion under the said provision, is concerned. Merely because the claimed invention is a polymorph of a compound that is previously patented, does not automatically render it a ‘known substance’, unless the compound is published before the priority date of the claimed invention.
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on 'ACCEPT', the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy.