Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 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" ?
NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging treatment of tax claims as operational debt under IBC resolution plan. Tribunal affirmed that Section 11E of Central Excise Act and Section 82 of CGST Act create explicit exceptions regarding IBC provisions. The appellant's tax claims were correctly classified as operational debt, eligible for payment u/s 30(2)(b). No violation found as payment exceeded liquidation value u/s 53(1) waterfall mechanism. Tribunal distinguished this from Gujarat VAT precedent, noting Central Excise Act's distinct provisions. Resolution plan approval upheld as compliant with statutory requirements for operational creditor treatment of tax claims.
NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging treatment of tax claims as operational debt under IBC resolution plan. Tribunal affirmed that Section 11E of Central Excise Act and Section 82 of CGST Act create explicit exceptions regarding IBC provisions. The appellant's tax claims were correctly classified as operational debt, eligible for payment u/s 30(2)(b). No violation found as payment exceeded liquidation value u/s 53(1) waterfall mechanism. Tribunal distinguished this from Gujarat VAT precedent, noting Central Excise Act's distinct provisions. Resolution plan approval upheld as compliant with statutory requirements for operational creditor treatment of tax claims.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
