Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC held that petitioner, as purchaser of corporate debtor's assets in liquidation, was not liable to pay previous owner's outstanding electricity dues directly to electricity distribution company. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that statutory dues to government entities must be treated separately from secured creditor claims and paid through IBC waterfall mechanism under Section 53. Electricity Act 2003 provisions do not override IBC due to Section 238's overriding effect. Respondents' demand for payment of previous owner's arrears was unjustified. HC directed respondents to refund Rs. 55,29,000 to petitioner with 6% interest from payment date, increasing to 12% if not paid within two months, and release remaining bank guarantee. Petition allowed.
HC held that petitioner, as purchaser of corporate debtor's assets in liquidation, was not liable to pay previous owner's outstanding electricity dues directly to electricity distribution company. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that statutory dues to government entities must be treated separately from secured creditor claims and paid through IBC waterfall mechanism under Section 53. Electricity Act 2003 provisions do not override IBC due to Section 238's overriding effect. Respondents' demand for payment of previous owner's arrears was unjustified. HC directed respondents to refund Rs. 55,29,000 to petitioner with 6% interest from payment date, increasing to 12% if not paid within two months, and release remaining bank guarantee. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.