Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.