Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Declination to accept the recommendation made by the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities by his order dated 06.04.2023 - seeking direction to the respondents to grant GST Concession Certificate to the petitioner so that petitioner can avail concessional rate of GST - The petitioner's contention that their application should be considered under the 2018 policy, as it was submitted before the amendment to the policy in 2019. - The High Cdourt observed that there were no restrictions regarding the length of the vehicle or the date of purchase under the 2018 policy. - The court found that the petitioner's application should have been considered under the 2018 policy, and the subsequent amendment to the policy did not affect the validity of their application.
Declination to accept the recommendation made by the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities by his order dated 06.04.2023 - seeking direction to the respondents to grant GST Concession Certificate to the petitioner so that petitioner can avail concessional rate of GST - The petitioner's contention that their application should be considered under the 2018 policy, as it was submitted before the amendment to the policy in 2019. - The High Cdourt observed that there were no restrictions regarding the length of the vehicle or the date of purchase under the 2018 policy. - The court found that the petitioner's application should have been considered under the 2018 policy, and the subsequent amendment to the policy did not affect the validity of their application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.