Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
