Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
