Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rule 12(4) of the capacity-based cess scheme for pan masala packing machines is described as valid because the Cess Act, Rule 12 and Schedule II operate as an integrated framework. Monthly cess is computed by reference to the maximum number of installed operational machines during the month, with capacity determined by rated speed and packing weight rather than installation date. The rule was found consistent with the parent statute and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Abatement applies only where a machine remains continuously inoperative for at least fifteen days; machines installed later and subsequently operated cannot be treated as inoperative before installation. The reported writ petition was dismissed, subject to the statutory appellate remedy for the abatement rejection.
Rule 12(4) of the capacity-based cess scheme for pan masala packing machines is described as valid because the Cess Act, Rule 12 and Schedule II operate as an integrated framework. Monthly cess is computed by reference to the maximum number of installed operational machines during the month, with capacity determined by rated speed and packing weight rather than installation date. The rule was found consistent with the parent statute and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Abatement applies only where a machine remains continuously inoperative for at least fifteen days; machines installed later and subsequently operated cannot be treated as inoperative before installation. The reported writ petition was dismissed, subject to the statutory appellate remedy for the abatement rejection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.