Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
The High Court ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, and violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution. The court held that Rule 96(10), as inserted by a notification dated 09-10-2018 with effect from 23-10-2017, is ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary, producing absurd results unintended by the legislature. Consequently, the court declared Rule 96(10) unenforceable and quashed any actions or orders against the petitioners based on it. The court directed that no proceedings shall be taken to recover IGST refunded to the petitioners by applying Rule 96(10) for the period between 23-10-2017 and 08-10-2024.
The High Court ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, and violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution. The court held that Rule 96(10), as inserted by a notification dated 09-10-2018 with effect from 23-10-2017, is ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary, producing absurd results unintended by the legislature. Consequently, the court declared Rule 96(10) unenforceable and quashed any actions or orders against the petitioners based on it. The court directed that no proceedings shall be taken to recover IGST refunded to the petitioners by applying Rule 96(10) for the period between 23-10-2017 and 08-10-2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
