Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The petitioner sought release of an export subsidy of Rs. 8,08,50,000/-. The respondent confirmed that the milk powder exported by the petitioner, amounting to 1617 metric tonnes, was from stock existing on June 30, 2018, entitling the petitioner to receive the export subsidy under the government resolution dated July 31, 2018. The court observed that once a similarly placed party like Indapur received such subsidy, which is a state largesse, the principles of reasonableness and fairness emanating from Article 14 of the Constitution of India require the respondents to extend similar treatment to the petitioner, who was identically placed. Differential treatment would result in a breach of the petitioner's right to non-discrimination under Article 14. The subsidy scheme is a welfare scheme, fully implemented and acted upon in Indapur's case. The Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the respondents regarding negative equality are distinguishable as the court had directed the release of export subsidy to Indapur based on its legal entitlement, without any illegality involved. Consequently, the respondents were directed to release the export subsidy amount of Rs. 8,08,50,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks.
The petitioner sought release of an export subsidy of Rs. 8,08,50,000/-. The respondent confirmed that the milk powder exported by the petitioner, amounting to 1617 metric tonnes, was from stock existing on June 30, 2018, entitling the petitioner to receive the export subsidy under the government resolution dated July 31, 2018. The court observed that once a similarly placed party like Indapur received such subsidy, which is a state largesse, the principles of reasonableness and fairness emanating from Article 14 of the Constitution of India require the respondents to extend similar treatment to the petitioner, who was identically placed. Differential treatment would result in a breach of the petitioner's right to non-discrimination under Article 14. The subsidy scheme is a welfare scheme, fully implemented and acted upon in Indapur's case. The Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the respondents regarding negative equality are distinguishable as the court had directed the release of export subsidy to Indapur based on its legal entitlement, without any illegality involved. Consequently, the respondents were directed to release the export subsidy amount of Rs. 8,08,50,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
