Supreme Court - High Court - Legal Breaking News | Live Law India

Referral Charges Received By Auto Dealers For Bank & Insurance Promotion Subject To Service Tax : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 05:03:27 GMT

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 19) held that the referral charges received by automobile dealers from banks and insurance companies for facilitating vehicle loans and insurance policies are taxable as “Business Auxiliary Service” under the Finance Act, 1994.

“The assessee is promoting the business of the banks and the insurance company for which they receive an amount as stipulated in the agreement.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

TVS Motor Company Ltd., a dealer in automobiles, received 'referral charges' from banks (HDFC Bank & ICICI Bank) and insurance companies (Oriental Insurance Company) for referring customers who availed motor vehicle loans and took out insurance policies through the dealer's facilitation.

The Department sought to tax these referral charges as "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee contended that the charges were not taxable and that there was confusion regarding the taxability of such services.

The assessee deposited the entire tax liability prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, however disputed the show cause notice issued on April 2, 2008, after the entire tax liability had already been discharged.

The judgment authored by Justice Chandran affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the referral charges are taxable as Business Auxiliary Service. The Court endorsed the Central, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) decision in M/s. Pagaria Auto Center v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad (2014), which held that referral charges received by automobile dealers for facilitating loans and insurance are taxable as Business Auxiliary Service.

However, the Court set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, noting that the tax liability was satisfied before the show cause notice was issued, observing that there was "some confusion insofar as liability".

“There was some confusion insofar as liability and hence the assessee had not disclosed the income generated from the referral charges as Business Auxiliary Service in the service tax returns filed. The period under consideration was 2003-2004 to 2006-2007 and even if the notice can be issued within the extended period, the satisfaction of the liability prior to issuance of notice would commend us to set aside the penalty imposed. We see from the order of the Tribunal that penalty under Section 76 imposed was set aside by the Tribunal and we direct that the penalty under Section 78 also be set aside.”, the court observed.

Cause Title: M/S TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-III

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 833

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mrs. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mrs. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Rai, Adv.

]]>

From Risk Management To Business Strategy: Evolution Of Corporate Legal In India

SHOURYA MAHLI — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 04:30:22 GMT

For a long time, corporate legal departments were viewed as cost centres that were valued more for preventing issues than for producing results. That view is changing quickly. As businesses invest more in internal competence than in outside counsel, general counsel now sit alongside CEOs and boards as strategic decision-makers, evaluated on business performance measures rather than lawsuit results.

What is causing this? Rapid technological innovation, the professionalization of legal operations as its own discipline, sustained pressure on legal spend, rising regulatory complexity, and growing demands that legal teams demonstrate quantitative value. These trends already characterize corporate legal practice globally, according to surveys conducted by the ACC and Thomson Reuters.^[2] This change is taking place in India concurrently with the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026, a legislative reform that directly affects the future operations of legal departments and law firms.

I. From Cost Centre to Strategic Partner

Under the previous model, legal's function was defensive: success meant avoiding problems and protecting the company from danger. That model is no longer valid. Unusual for in-house attorneys a generation ago, general counsel increasingly participates in product development, board governance, regulatory planning, AI governance, ESG, cybersecurity, and crisis management. According to Thomson Reuters research, General Counsel prioritizes value generation over risk management.

This change permeates all that comes after. The position of the individual lawyer changed as businesses internalized legal knowledge, raising the question of why businesses are developing this skill internally and why attorneys are opting to follow.

II. Why Companies Are Building In-House Legal Teams

optimization of costs: These days, departments only use outside counsel for specialized issues including complicated litigation, arbitration, M&A, cross-border transactions, and tax guidance. The objective is to selectively engage external organizations where they provide value that internal teams cannot match, rather than to completely eliminate them. According to ACC polls, departments are under constant pressure to reduce expenditures while taking on more complicated, greater tasks internally.

Regulatory complexity: Data privacy, AI governance, ESG reporting, competition law, employment regulation, and cybersecurity are fast-moving areas that ad hoc outside consultation can no longer manage efficiently. Companies need continuous, embedded expertise regulatory compliance has become core operational infrastructure, not a peripheral function.

Technology: By automating contract review, research, document management, and compliance monitoring, artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and legal technology are transforming the provision of legal services. This reduces expenses and turnaround time by allowing internal teams to take up work that has been outsourced. Adoption of workflow automation technologies is now a competitive must rather than an option.

familiarity with business: While an external lawyer is knowledgeable about the law, an internal lawyer is familiar with the business. Outside consultants seldom have the opportunity to gain the kind of deep understanding of commercial objectives, culture, and risk appetite that in-house lawyers do. The in-house attorneys are more of strategic advisers and business partners rather than just legal advisors, reflecting the expectation that they provide economically viable solutions rather than only technically sound recommendations.

the evolving connection to legal businesses: External companies are not rendered obsolete by any of this. Businesses now use a hybrid approach: ordinary advising work is done inside, but outside counsel handles specialized issues including M&A, arbitration, constitutional litigation, and complicated tax disputes. Legal departments now operate as knowledgeable clients who determine exactly when outside expertise is worth the expense; the relationship has changed from dependence to selective cooperation. This means that legal firms will compete less on general availability and more on verifiable specialized competence; this hybrid model is likely to dominate the ecosystem in the future.

Why attorneys are opting for in-house positions: Employers are not the only ones driving this change. A legal department is a business support unit focused on organizational success, not a billable-hour model, thus leaving private practice needs a significant adjustment. Ownership of long-term initiatives, increased participation in corporate decisions, cross-functional cooperation, and more consistent career advancement than the erratic partnership track are the draws. The in-house lawyer is expected to be a well-rounded business professional because negotiation, commercial awareness, stakeholder management, and legal tech skills are now just as important as legal reasoning.

As in-house teams grew, a further question emerged: who manages the technology, budgets, vendors, and workflows once a department outgrows a handful of generalist lawyers? That question gave rise to legal operations.

III. The Rise of Legal Operations

Growth posed an issue that could not be resolved by legal expertise alone: someone had to oversee the technology, finances, vendor relationships, and data infrastructure. Lawyers who had been negotiating invoices and monitoring licenses could now concentrate on legal and strategic judgment as legal operations became a separate discipline rather than an administrative afterthought.

Instead of practicing law, the Legal Operations Manager is now one of the fastest-growing positions in corporate legal, managing legal technology, budgets, relationships with outside counsel, and workflow.

foundations of the judicial system. In reality, this boils down to a few related functions. By replacing dispersed, ad hoc contract review with automated creation, standardized procedures, e-signatures, and version control, contract lifecycle management (CLM) frees up lawyer attention for legitimate exceptions. A department cannot report useful KPIs without matter management solutions, which provide visibility into each active matter's status, owner, and budget in one location. While spend analytics show which practice areas and firms are most cost-effective, departments need to defend budgets at the board level. E-billing centralizes and analyzes outside counsel invoices, enforcing billing guidelines and reporting rate discrepancies. Adoption of AI is being monitored as a maturity indicator, and it is becoming a fundamental investment in legal operations.

This data is increasingly being combined by legal operations teams to create unified KPI dashboards for the board. However, mature teams prioritize change management just as much as the technology itself, and the dashboard is only helpful if acceptance is established. Together, these roles have transformed legal operations from back-office work to a distinguishing characteristic of high-performing departments, and legal is able to measure its worth because of its maturity.

IV. Measuring the Business Value of Legal

The challenge of what to measure and how to report it arises once a department is able to monitor its own activity. Demonstrating value in terms that the business can comprehend has grown crucial as legal competes with other departments for resources. The operations architecture mentioned above enables disciplined cost control, as demonstrated by financial and operational KPIs. Risk measurements, as opposed to unseen background work, transform legal's traditional strength into terms the company can assess. The largest change is in business-facing metrics, which reframe legal as a function like marketing or finance whose impact can be quantified. AI adds an additional layer; departments are now monitoring automation-driven time savings and AI-assisted drafting accuracy in addition to these frameworks. This need for quantifiable value is showing up as regulatory reform in India.

V. India's Regulatory Response: The Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026

The Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026, one of the most extensive attempts to reform the profession since the Advocates Act, 1961, was made available for public discussion by the Bar Council of India in July 2026. Its contents strongly correspond with the factors technology, specialization, globalization, and institutionalization that are already changing corporate legal practice.

The most obvious response in the draft is institutional capacity building, which names commercial and corporate law, arbitration, artificial intelligence, cyber law, insolvency, and international practice as emerging specializations that the Bar Council formally recognizes as having been addressed informally for years by corporate departments.

Its most significant proposal, which establishes a statutory definition of a "law firm" under the Advocates Act and requires Bar Council registration, gives Indian law companies legislative status for the first time. This is similar to what is taking on within legal departments: this reform professionalizes the external counterpart in the same way as legal operations professionalized internal management.

Additionally, while maintaining the current limitations on foreign attorneys appearing before Indian courts, the proposal suggests a statutory framework for international attorneys and companies operating in India that formalizes registration and reciprocity. This illustrates how internal practices are being reshaped by the same push from globalization.

The Bill is best read not as a stand-alone regulatory exercise, but as India's regulatory system catching up with a transformation corporate legal departments have been living through for a decade.

VI. Future of Corporate Legal Practice

These developments suggest that the legal department will be increasingly technologically advanced, multidisciplinary, and accountable in terms of business. Working with experts in cybersecurity and data analytics, generative AI, legal analytics, and contract automation will probably push teams away from reactive advising work and toward proactive business facilitation. Companies will look to internal counsel for real-time strategic assistance rather than issue-specific opinions as AI, data security, and ESG frameworks continue to develop, expanding the General Counsel's role to include executive decision-making and enterprise risk management.

The evolution of legal departments reflects a broader change in corporate governance: they are now expected to foster innovation and resilience rather than only lower risk, reinforced structurally rather than merely by preference. The Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which explicitly recognizes specializations like AI and cyber law and grants law firms institutional standing for the first time, demonstrates how these innovations are already making their way into domestic legislation in India. The direction is obvious, but implementation rather than drafting determines whether these improvements are successful. Only a portion of what is available will be captured by departments that view this as merely an operational enhancement. Instead of just being referred to as strategic partners, those who approach it as a true redefining of the lawyer's position will become strategic partners.

The future corporate lawyer will not compete with AI. They will compete with lawyers who understand business, technology, and data better than they do.

Ass'n of Corp. Counsel, 2025 Chief Legal Officers Survey (2025); Thomson Reuters Inst., 2025 State of the Corporate Law Department Report (2025). Ass'n of Corp. Counsel, 2025 Chief Legal Officers Survey (2025); Thomson Reuters Inst., 2025 State of the Corporate Law Department Report (2025). ↑
Author is a third year BBA LLB(Hons.) student at Faculty of law , University of Delhi. Views are personal.

]]>

Judicial Interference In Tender Process At Advanced Stage Not Warranted, Challenge Must Be Prompt : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 06:19:41 GMT

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 18) ruled against judicial interference in public procurement tenders at an advanced stage, noting that a belated challenge to tender conditions, after significant developments had taken place in the evaluation process, would be unfair and unjust to otherwise eligible bidders.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli dismissed appeals challenging tender conditions for procurement of sports goods and outdoor gymnasium equipment for government schools in Delhi, noting that the process had substantially advanced and third-party rights had crystallized.

“Judicial discretion, therefore, must be exercised with extreme circumspection to ensure that fence–sitters, proxies, and unscrupulous litigants who bring a challenge at an advanced stage, are not allowed to disrupt an ongoing process.”, the Court observed.

Noting that despite the Appellants having a notice of the tender conditions from the inception of the tendering process, chose to remain silent for four months, before challenging the tender conditions on the grounds of being excessive, exclusionary and arbitrary before the High Court. When the challenge to the tender was made, substantial development took place, including the crystallisation of a third-party rights, which the Court found to be prejudicing the rights of the successful bidders.

The court noted that the Sports Equipment Tenders were floated on December 22, 2025, with the bidding deadline being January 13, 2026. However, the writ petition challenging the tender conditions was filed only on April 1, 2026, about four months after publication. By then, one of the six sports equipment tenders had already been awarded, while the remaining tenders had moved through document verification and physical demonstration stages and had reached financial evaluation by the time of the Supreme Court's consideration.

“Tender schedules operate within compressed and purpose – bound timelines. Four months may appear modest when viewed merely as a measure of calendar time. In the life of a tender, however, it may mark the distance between invitation and evaluation, between evaluation and selection, and between an open field and the crystallization of competing interests. Delay in such matters is therefore not assessed by counting days alone. It must be assessed by reference to what has occurred during those days, whose interests have arisen, and what public consequences would follow from unsettling the process at that stage.”, the judgment authored by Justice Palli observed.

Tendering process cannot be stalled at the verge of final evaluation of the price bids

“Those who participated in the tendering process, met every single condition/eligibility criterion, and went through a rigorous evaluation of their technical bids were declared responsive/compliant. Such entities, at the verge of final evaluation of their price bids, too have acquired certain rights and interests. Therefore, to stall the process and afford any judicial indulgence to the Appellants, who approached the High Court at their own convenience, would be unfair. Rather unjust.”, the Court said.

The court further held that a challenge to an eligibility condition accrues on the very day the condition is published. A bidder who considers itself excluded or rendered ineligible by an allegedly arbitrary condition must raise the grievance at the earliest opportunity.

The Supreme Court also attached particular significance to the public purpose behind the tenders. The procurement involved sports and gym equipment worth around ₹34 crore, intended for approximately 16 lakh school students. A substantial portion of the procurement had come to a standstill because of the litigation, the court noted.

The bidders had particularly challenged a condition requiring sports equipment suppliers to maintain a fully functional office in Delhi and a warehouse in Delhi/Delhi-NCR for the previous three years.

The clause stated that the requirement was imposed because the department might require equipment to be supplied at short notice.

The appellants argued that the condition was exclusionary and relied on the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, where a tender condition requiring prior supply experience specifically to State government agencies in Chhattisgarh had been held arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Supreme Court, however, distinguished that decision. It noted that the Delhi condition was presented as an operational requirement, intended to ensure prompt installation, inspection, servicing, maintenance and replacement of equipment, particularly because delays concerning defects or safety could affect schoolchildren.

As a result, the appeals were dismissed.

“…the Appellants' case is bereft of any merit, it is for this belated challenge, portraying a lack of bona fide that we are dissuaded from examining the assailed clauses, rendering any findings on the same, and hence lie on the same page as the High Court.”, the Court held.

Cause Title: M/S. UTKARSH ENTERPRISES & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 825

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Ms. Aanchal Basur, Adv. Ms. Shruti Narayan, Adv. Mr. Zain Maqbool, Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv. Ms. Nida Khan Salim, Adv. Mr. Meeran Maqbool, Adv. Mr. Saif Zia, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Sinha, Adv. Ms. Shweta Bharti, Adv. Ms. Tejaswini Chandrasekhar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Chaddha, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sengupta, Adv.