Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT held that the NCLT erred in unilaterally changing the appointed date from 1.4.2019 to 1.4.2020 while admitting the scheme of arrangement. The application was filed on 1.12.2019, and as per the circular, the appointed date within a year of filing did not require any justification. Even if the appointed date was ante-dated beyond a year, mere justification that it was not against public interest was sufficient. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic delay, the appointed date should have remained 1.4.2019. The NCLT's role is supervisory, and if statutory compliance and no violation of law or public policy is found, it cannot sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the parties approving the scheme. Altering the appointed date would have serious financial implications. The NCLAT allowed the appeal, restoring the appointed date as 1.4.2019.
The NCLAT held that the NCLT erred in unilaterally changing the appointed date from 1.4.2019 to 1.4.2020 while admitting the scheme of arrangement. The application was filed on 1.12.2019, and as per the circular, the appointed date within a year of filing did not require any justification. Even if the appointed date was ante-dated beyond a year, mere justification that it was not against public interest was sufficient. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic delay, the appointed date should have remained 1.4.2019. The NCLT's role is supervisory, and if statutory compliance and no violation of law or public policy is found, it cannot sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the parties approving the scheme. Altering the appointed date would have serious financial implications. The NCLAT allowed the appeal, restoring the appointed date as 1.4.2019.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
