Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The High Court allowed the petition, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to authorization to import an additional 8,000 Metric Tonnes of Maize Corn/Pop Corn. The Court held that the respondents' refusal to grant the balance authorization of 8,000 Metric Tonnes to the petitioner for importing Maize Corn/Pop Corn was arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the respondents to issue the authorization for the remaining 8,000 Metric Tonnes expeditiously, within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court found that the restrictions imposed by granting authorization for only 2,000 Metric Tonnes were without statutory backing u/ss 3 and 9A of the Act of 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The exercise of discretion by the respondents in limiting the authorization was held to be unfair and contrary to the principles of due process and legitimate expectation.
The High Court allowed the petition, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to authorization to import an additional 8,000 Metric Tonnes of Maize Corn/Pop Corn. The Court held that the respondents' refusal to grant the balance authorization of 8,000 Metric Tonnes to the petitioner for importing Maize Corn/Pop Corn was arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the respondents to issue the authorization for the remaining 8,000 Metric Tonnes expeditiously, within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court found that the restrictions imposed by granting authorization for only 2,000 Metric Tonnes were without statutory backing u/ss 3 and 9A of the Act of 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The exercise of discretion by the respondents in limiting the authorization was held to be unfair and contrary to the principles of due process and legitimate expectation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.