Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
