On 11 March 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (‘USTR’) initiated investigations under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 (‘Section 301’) into the policies of several economies concerning excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors.

The Bombay High Court has allowed the petition filed by the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer and Director and Joint Managing Director of a taxpayer/company in a case where personal penalty was imposed on them under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017. The company had allegedly wrongfully availed and passed the ITC.

The Madras High Court has held Rule 46(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 to be ultra vires Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Rule 46(1) provides for filing of evidence in support of the application for registration of trademark and sub-rule (2) of the said Rule states that ‘If an applicant takes no action under sub-rule (1) within the time mentioned therein, he shall be deemed to have abandoned his application’. Section 21 talks about opposition to registration.

The Orissa High Court has observed that the nature of refund claim in a case where tax was mistakenly paid twice, once by utilizing credit ledger and second time though cash, falls within the fold of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, and not under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Supreme Court of India has culled out certain governing principles with regard to application of the common or trade parlance test and for consideration of ‘use’, while dealing with classification disputes under taxation laws.