Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without any saving clause, meant that pending proceedings based solely on alleged contravention of that rule could not continue. The Court applied Rayala Corporation and Kolhapur Canesugar Works to hold that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve proceedings after omission of a rule, as distinct from repeal of a Central Act or Regulation. As the order-in-original and consequential demands rested entirely on the omitted rule, they were unsustainable and were quashed.
Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without any saving clause, meant that pending proceedings based solely on alleged contravention of that rule could not continue. The Court applied Rayala Corporation and Kolhapur Canesugar Works to hold that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve proceedings after omission of a rule, as distinct from repeal of a Central Act or Regulation. As the order-in-original and consequential demands rested entirely on the omitted rule, they were unsustainable and were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.