Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017, which was alleged to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. The Court relied on its previous judgment in M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & others, where it held that in view of the amendment inserting Section 16(5), the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity and heard by the original authority, which should then proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, the present petition was allowed and disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment, directing the authorities to implement the provisions after granting a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017, which was alleged to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. The Court relied on its previous judgment in M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & others, where it held that in view of the amendment inserting Section 16(5), the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity and heard by the original authority, which should then proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, the present petition was allowed and disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment, directing the authorities to implement the provisions after granting a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
