Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council to refer disputes between the parties for arbitration under the 2006 Act. It held that although the agreement was entered into before the supplier registered as a small enterprise, the work continued after registration. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shanti Conductors' case, it ruled that the applicability of the Act is determined based on when goods/services were rendered, not the contract date. The Court noted that MRPL had initially raised the jurisdictional issue but later gave it up before the Single Judge. Hence, the Council had jurisdiction to refer disputes to arbitration u/s 18 of the 2006 Act. Regarding the impact of the "No Claim Certificate" issued by the supplier, the Court refrained from examining it as MRPL's petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was pending adjudication. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council to refer disputes between the parties for arbitration under the 2006 Act. It held that although the agreement was entered into before the supplier registered as a small enterprise, the work continued after registration. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shanti Conductors' case, it ruled that the applicability of the Act is determined based on when goods/services were rendered, not the contract date. The Court noted that MRPL had initially raised the jurisdictional issue but later gave it up before the Single Judge. Hence, the Council had jurisdiction to refer disputes to arbitration u/s 18 of the 2006 Act. Regarding the impact of the "No Claim Certificate" issued by the supplier, the Court refrained from examining it as MRPL's petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was pending adjudication. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
