Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Fourth Proviso to Section 153A: extended-period inquiry requires a reasonable, material-based satisfaction that escaped income likely exceeds the thre...
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.