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...
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order directing a transaction audit and allowing the application for dissolution u/s 54 of the IBC and Regulation 14 of the Liquidation Regulations. The scheme of the IBC mandates that dissolution is a subsequent step after complete liquidation, which was not undertaken in this case. The CIRP was completed without a resolution plan, despite publication of Form-G twice. No liquidation order was passed u/s 33(1). Since the CoC, consisting of the sole Financial Creditor who initiated CIRP, decided not to contribute towards liquidation costs and the CIRP period ended, the RP should have intimated the Registrar of Companies for striking off the company's name instead of resorting to Section 54. The Appellate Tribunal's judgment in Shyson Thomas was distinguished as a case where the Adjudicating Authority exercised its jurisdiction to direct dissolution.
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order directing a transaction audit and allowing the application for dissolution u/s 54 of the IBC and Regulation 14 of the Liquidation Regulations. The scheme of the IBC mandates that dissolution is a subsequent step after complete liquidation, which was not undertaken in this case. The CIRP was completed without a resolution plan, despite publication of Form-G twice. No liquidation order was passed u/s 33(1). Since the CoC, consisting of the sole Financial Creditor who initiated CIRP, decided not to contribute towards liquidation costs and the CIRP period ended, the RP should have intimated the Registrar of Companies for striking off the company's name instead of resorting to Section 54. The Appellate Tribunal's judgment in Shyson Thomas was distinguished as a case where the Adjudicating Authority exercised its jurisdiction to direct dissolution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
