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...
Constitutional validity of Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, regarding the waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of surety bond or bank guarantee, was examined. While the appellate authority lacks the power to waive the condition, the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can direct the appeal to be heard without insisting on the precondition. The requirement of an irrevocable bank guarantee or surety bond is an onerous condition. The petitioners would be unable to submit security in the form of a surety bond as they lack property worth the said amount. A person cannot be left remediless. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, is directed to hear the appeals without insisting on the precondition u/s 33(5) and decide on merits. The appellate authority cannot waive the pre-deposit required u/s 33(5). The Haryana Tax Tribunal's order upholding the refusal to entertain the appeal without surety bonds or pre-deposit is not illegal.
Constitutional validity of Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, regarding the waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of surety bond or bank guarantee, was examined. While the appellate authority lacks the power to waive the condition, the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can direct the appeal to be heard without insisting on the precondition. The requirement of an irrevocable bank guarantee or surety bond is an onerous condition. The petitioners would be unable to submit security in the form of a surety bond as they lack property worth the said amount. A person cannot be left remediless. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, is directed to hear the appeals without insisting on the precondition u/s 33(5) and decide on merits. The appellate authority cannot waive the pre-deposit required u/s 33(5). The Haryana Tax Tribunal's order upholding the refusal to entertain the appeal without surety bonds or pre-deposit is not illegal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
