Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
A corporate debtor remains a separate juristic person even where it forms part of a group, and Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits set-off only for mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and the same counterparty. The Tribunal rejected cross-entity aggregation of claims through the Group of Companies Doctrine, noting that each BISCON entity had undergone separate CIRP or liquidation and had separate billing and deposits. The appellant had also filed separate claims and disclosed no mutual set-off in the present proceeding. The liquidator was therefore entitled to recover the refundable balance as part of the liquidation estate, and the appeal was dismissed.
A corporate debtor remains a separate juristic person even where it forms part of a group, and Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits set-off only for mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and the same counterparty. The Tribunal rejected cross-entity aggregation of claims through the Group of Companies Doctrine, noting that each BISCON entity had undergone separate CIRP or liquidation and had separate billing and deposits. The appellant had also filed separate claims and disclosed no mutual set-off in the present proceeding. The liquidator was therefore entitled to recover the refundable balance as part of the liquidation estate, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
