Captive power transfer pricing and non-resident export commission rules support deletion of adjustments and withholding disallowance in discussed proc...
Cooperative society deposits, member-interest TDS exemption and credit-facility deduction claims require verification through records and supporting e...
Customs jurisdiction over EPCG condition breaches survives export-obligation discharge certificates, requiring alleged fraud and misdeclaration to be ...
Contractual tolerance requires consideration; breach recoveries, qualifying public infrastructure services and road works escape service tax liability...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
