Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The HC allowed petitioner's writ petition challenging rejection of benefits under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019. Respondents denied benefits solely because scheme deadline had expired, despite petitioner's COVID-related payment difficulties. The HC relied on Supreme Court limitation extension judgments and favorable High Court decisions from Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi granting SVLDRS benefits in COVID circumstances, even for post-deadline payments. The court held that denying scheme benefits would contradict the scheme's objective of liquidating past central excise and service tax disputes before GST implementation and would cause injustice to an otherwise eligible declarant. Following Madras HC precedent in N. Sundarajan, the court determined scheme provisions were directive rather than mandatory. The impugned rejection order and demand notices were quashed, with directions issued to accept petitioner's payment and issue discharge certificate.
The HC allowed petitioner's writ petition challenging rejection of benefits under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019. Respondents denied benefits solely because scheme deadline had expired, despite petitioner's COVID-related payment difficulties. The HC relied on Supreme Court limitation extension judgments and favorable High Court decisions from Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi granting SVLDRS benefits in COVID circumstances, even for post-deadline payments. The court held that denying scheme benefits would contradict the scheme's objective of liquidating past central excise and service tax disputes before GST implementation and would cause injustice to an otherwise eligible declarant. Following Madras HC precedent in N. Sundarajan, the court determined scheme provisions were directive rather than mandatory. The impugned rejection order and demand notices were quashed, with directions issued to accept petitioner's payment and issue discharge certificate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
