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...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
