Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The HC determined that DRAT erred in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and debt status under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRAT failed to fulfill its appellate authority role by not addressing substantive legal issues raised before it, despite having sufficient factual material to decide HDFC's claims against Ashima and BBK. The court emphasized that remand orders should not be issued lightly, particularly in cases pending for nearly 20 years. The HC directed DRAT to decide the appeals on merits without further remand to DRT, noting that remand is only justified when re-trial is necessary or evidence is insufficient for disposition.
The HC determined that DRAT erred in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and debt status under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRAT failed to fulfill its appellate authority role by not addressing substantive legal issues raised before it, despite having sufficient factual material to decide HDFC's claims against Ashima and BBK. The court emphasized that remand orders should not be issued lightly, particularly in cases pending for nearly 20 years. The HC directed DRAT to decide the appeals on merits without further remand to DRT, noting that remand is only justified when re-trial is necessary or evidence is insufficient for disposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
