Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The High Court addressed the issue of tax deduction at source for work contracts and supplies, and entitlement to Additional Tax Reimbursement u/s 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. To invoke Section 64A, two pre-conditions must be met: absence of a contrary contract and duty rate change post-contract. The court referenced MAFATLAL case on unjust enrichment. The case involved potential input tax credit benefits post-July 2017. Circular No. 3/2017-GST mandates GST payment at 6% u/s 12 and 13 of the Act of 2017 and CGST. Court upheld the 6% GST liability for invoices post-July 2017. The court couldn't determine Section 64A benefit due to insufficient evidence. Writ petition was disposed of.
The High Court addressed the issue of tax deduction at source for work contracts and supplies, and entitlement to Additional Tax Reimbursement u/s 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. To invoke Section 64A, two pre-conditions must be met: absence of a contrary contract and duty rate change post-contract. The court referenced MAFATLAL case on unjust enrichment. The case involved potential input tax credit benefits post-July 2017. Circular No. 3/2017-GST mandates GST payment at 6% u/s 12 and 13 of the Act of 2017 and CGST. Court upheld the 6% GST liability for invoices post-July 2017. The court couldn't determine Section 64A benefit due to insufficient evidence. Writ petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
