Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Pendency of CIRP against a promoter does not, by itself, bar a society's application for deemed conveyance under MOFA. The Court held that the promoter's duty to convey the land and building arises from statutory and contractual obligations, and that deemed conveyance is a statutory mechanism to perfect the flat purchasers' title, not debt recovery or enforcement of a monetary claim. It further held that there is no inconsistency between MOFA and the IBC requiring exclusion under Section 238, and that the moratorium under Section 14 does not prevent the Competent Authority from deciding the application on merits. The refusal was set aside and the matter restored.
Pendency of CIRP against a promoter does not, by itself, bar a society's application for deemed conveyance under MOFA. The Court held that the promoter's duty to convey the land and building arises from statutory and contractual obligations, and that deemed conveyance is a statutory mechanism to perfect the flat purchasers' title, not debt recovery or enforcement of a monetary claim. It further held that there is no inconsistency between MOFA and the IBC requiring exclusion under Section 238, and that the moratorium under Section 14 does not prevent the Competent Authority from deciding the application on merits. The refusal was set aside and the matter restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.