Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
SC upheld the arbitral award and HC's decision, holding that the transaction was a bill discounting facility, not a loan, rendering the Usurious Loans Act inapplicable. Relying on Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, SC affirmed party autonomy in stipulating interest, including high and compound interest, and held that the agreed 36% compound interest was not unconscionable, penal, or opposed to public policy. Section 74 of the Contract Act was found inapplicable to the enhanced interest clause, which was treated as a valid commercial bargain. The contra proferentem rule was rejected in light of clear contractual language. Appeal dismissed.
SC upheld the arbitral award and HC's decision, holding that the transaction was a bill discounting facility, not a loan, rendering the Usurious Loans Act inapplicable. Relying on Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, SC affirmed party autonomy in stipulating interest, including high and compound interest, and held that the agreed 36% compound interest was not unconscionable, penal, or opposed to public policy. Section 74 of the Contract Act was found inapplicable to the enhanced interest clause, which was treated as a valid commercial bargain. The contra proferentem rule was rejected in light of clear contractual language. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
