Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the respondent Bank's actions in not releasing amounts deposited in an Escrow Account for payment of statutory liabilities like GST from 2017 onwards is maintainable, despite other disputes being adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Bank's adjustments to the receivables in the Escrow Account for loan repayment, resulting in non-compliance with statutory requirements like filing GSTR-3B and non-payment of GST, constituted a breach of the Escrow Agreement. The petitioner Company did not have control or the right to operate the Escrow Account, which was to be operated by the respondent Bank as per the Agreement. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the respondent Bank's actions in not releasing amounts deposited in an Escrow Account for payment of statutory liabilities like GST from 2017 onwards is maintainable, despite other disputes being adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Bank's adjustments to the receivables in the Escrow Account for loan repayment, resulting in non-compliance with statutory requirements like filing GSTR-3B and non-payment of GST, constituted a breach of the Escrow Agreement. The petitioner Company did not have control or the right to operate the Escrow Account, which was to be operated by the respondent Bank as per the Agreement. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
