Content ownership determines GST treatment of printed publications: customer-supplied text is a taxable printing service, owned content is exempt good...
Employee recoveries, input tax credit and notice pay recovery under GST: AAR distinguishes taxable supplies from non-taxable perquisites and penalties...
An appellant seeking repayment of a deposit must prove that the respondent company actually received the amount as its deposit; where the receipt and bank details showed credit to another entity treated as a separate legal person, the claim against the company was not maintainable on that basis. Once the company entered corporate insolvency resolution process, the moratorium barred continuation of pending proceedings and the insolvency framework became the only route for recovery through submission of a claim in the insolvency process. The appeal was therefore treated as infructuous, without prejudice to pursuit of the insolvency remedy.
An appellant seeking repayment of a deposit must prove that the respondent company actually received the amount as its deposit; where the receipt and bank details showed credit to another entity treated as a separate legal person, the claim against the company was not maintainable on that basis. Once the company entered corporate insolvency resolution process, the moratorium barred continuation of pending proceedings and the insolvency framework became the only route for recovery through submission of a claim in the insolvency process. The appeal was therefore treated as infructuous, without prejudice to pursuit of the insolvency remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.