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...
Doctrine of promissory estoppel - Benefit under incentive Scheme - Scenarios of new Acts replacing the VAT Act, ensuring entitlement despite the GST regime. - The High court found that the petitioner fulfilled conditions of the scheme and was entitled to benefits. Past disbursements under the scheme, including GST components, supported this entitlement. The respondent's refusal to disburse the rest of the amount was unjustified. - Clause 19.2 of the scheme was interpreted to cover scenarios where the VAT Act is replaced by any other Act, ensuring continued entitlement despite changes in taxation regimes. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the GST Act replaced multiple statutes, holding that only the VAT Act was specifically mentioned in Clause 19.2.
Doctrine of promissory estoppel - Benefit under incentive Scheme - Scenarios of new Acts replacing the VAT Act, ensuring entitlement despite the GST regime. - The High court found that the petitioner fulfilled conditions of the scheme and was entitled to benefits. Past disbursements under the scheme, including GST components, supported this entitlement. The respondent's refusal to disburse the rest of the amount was unjustified. - Clause 19.2 of the scheme was interpreted to cover scenarios where the VAT Act is replaced by any other Act, ensuring continued entitlement despite changes in taxation regimes. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the GST Act replaced multiple statutes, holding that only the VAT Act was specifically mentioned in Clause 19.2.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
