Pre-enactment land-sale agreements escape stamp-duty value substitution where substantial banking-channel consideration was received before Section 43...
Customs valuation and classification require comparable evidence and assessment of imported goods in their actual condition, invalidating related pena...
HC directed respondents to extend industrial promotion policy benefits to petitioner within 3 months. While respondents acknowledged petitioner's construction investment per appellate authority's order dated 05/01/2022, they denied benefits under Clauses 9(a) and 9(b) of 22/06/2018 policy, citing ineligibility under 2014 policy. Court noted that post-GST implementation, State issued circular dated 22/06/2018 modifying previous policy. Finding respondents' denial unjustified, HC mandated compliance with appellate authority's order, requiring extension of benefits as per modified policy provisions.
HC directed respondents to extend industrial promotion policy benefits to petitioner within 3 months. While respondents acknowledged petitioner's construction investment per appellate authority's order dated 05/01/2022, they denied benefits under Clauses 9(a) and 9(b) of 22/06/2018 policy, citing ineligibility under 2014 policy. Court noted that post-GST implementation, State issued circular dated 22/06/2018 modifying previous policy. Finding respondents' denial unjustified, HC mandated compliance with appellate authority's order, requiring extension of benefits as per modified policy provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.