Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismissed the review petition challenging pre-deposit requirements with Rs.10,000/- costs. The petition failed on procedural and substantive grounds. The Advocate's certificate accompanying the review petition did not comply with Rule 23(iii) of Chapter IV of the Bombay HC Rules. The court rejected petitioner's argument that being a loss-making unit warranted waiver of 10% pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to circumvent pre-deposit conditions. The review jurisdiction being limited in scope, and the petition essentially attempting to re-argue the matter, no grounds were established for exercising review powers.
HC dismissed the review petition challenging pre-deposit requirements with Rs.10,000/- costs. The petition failed on procedural and substantive grounds. The Advocate's certificate accompanying the review petition did not comply with Rule 23(iii) of Chapter IV of the Bombay HC Rules. The court rejected petitioner's argument that being a loss-making unit warranted waiver of 10% pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to circumvent pre-deposit conditions. The review jurisdiction being limited in scope, and the petition essentially attempting to re-argue the matter, no grounds were established for exercising review powers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
