Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Services of President and Members) Rules, 2023. The petitioner contested the reconstituted Search-cum-Selection Committee's decision to restart the appointment process de novo after some members demitted office. The HC held that Rule 3 does not expressly restrict the reconstituted Committee's procedures, and the phrase "as it may deem fit" must be construed pragmatically to achieve the statutory objective. The Court found no illegality in the Committee's decision to scrutinize applications afresh based on Intelligence Bureau inputs, emphasizing that appointments to judicial positions require high integrity and suitability standards.
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Services of President and Members) Rules, 2023. The petitioner contested the reconstituted Search-cum-Selection Committee's decision to restart the appointment process de novo after some members demitted office. The HC held that Rule 3 does not expressly restrict the reconstituted Committee's procedures, and the phrase "as it may deem fit" must be construed pragmatically to achieve the statutory objective. The Court found no illegality in the Committee's decision to scrutinize applications afresh based on Intelligence Bureau inputs, emphasizing that appointments to judicial positions require high integrity and suitability standards.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
