Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Penalty u/r 25 or 26 of CER - Mentioning wrong rule number - The first appellate authority was not correct in holding that mentioning Rule 25 was a typographical error and the intention was to impose penalty under Rule 26, because in the Order-in-Original, the lower authority has discussed as to why penalty is liable to be imposed under rule 25
Penalty u/r 25 or 26 of CER - Mentioning wrong rule number - The first appellate authority was not correct in holding that mentioning Rule 25 was a typographical error and the intention was to impose penalty under Rule 26, because in the Order-in-Original, the lower authority has discussed as to why penalty is liable to be imposed under rule 25
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.