Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The retrospective effect of the Notification dated 26.12.2013, issued subsequent to the import date, was examined. The amendment inserted the phrase "113 Kameng Hydro Electrical Power Project, Arunachal Pradesh- 600 MW (North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd.) (NEEPCO)." The appellant's power project, duly approved by the Ministry of Power, was eligible for duty exemption under the Notification dated 17.03.2012. Since the Notification dated 26.12.2013 was curative, incorporating the specific NEEPCO power project for duty exemption, and its effective date was not specified, it should be considered retrospective. The Supreme Court clarified that clarificatory notifications are retrospective, making explicit what was implicit. When the Government rectifies inadvertent errors through notifications, they are treated as corrective/clarificatory with retrospective effect. Consequently, the appellant should be granted the benefit under the Notification dated 26.12.2013, and their application for re-assessment should be considered by extending the exemption. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The retrospective effect of the Notification dated 26.12.2013, issued subsequent to the import date, was examined. The amendment inserted the phrase "113 Kameng Hydro Electrical Power Project, Arunachal Pradesh- 600 MW (North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd.) (NEEPCO)." The appellant's power project, duly approved by the Ministry of Power, was eligible for duty exemption under the Notification dated 17.03.2012. Since the Notification dated 26.12.2013 was curative, incorporating the specific NEEPCO power project for duty exemption, and its effective date was not specified, it should be considered retrospective. The Supreme Court clarified that clarificatory notifications are retrospective, making explicit what was implicit. When the Government rectifies inadvertent errors through notifications, they are treated as corrective/clarificatory with retrospective effect. Consequently, the appellant should be granted the benefit under the Notification dated 26.12.2013, and their application for re-assessment should be considered by extending the exemption. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
