Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Concessional electricity charges under Clause 16(a) of the 2019 Industrial Policy were held to apply only to new industrial enterprises, while existing enterprises undertaking substantial expansion fell under Clause 16(b) and could claim only the rebate linked to incremental consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting "eligible" with "new" in Clause 16(a) and aligning Clause 16(b) with substantial expansion was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, except for the newly introduced three-year duration under Clause 16(b), which operated prospectively. The respondent therefore had no entitlement to Clause 16(a) concession, and promissory estoppel could not create a benefit beyond the Policy's true scope.
Concessional electricity charges under Clause 16(a) of the 2019 Industrial Policy were held to apply only to new industrial enterprises, while existing enterprises undertaking substantial expansion fell under Clause 16(b) and could claim only the rebate linked to incremental consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting "eligible" with "new" in Clause 16(a) and aligning Clause 16(b) with substantial expansion was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, except for the newly introduced three-year duration under Clause 16(b), which operated prospectively. The respondent therefore had no entitlement to Clause 16(a) concession, and promissory estoppel could not create a benefit beyond the Policy's true scope.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
