Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The HC held that the impugned G.O.s issued by the State prohibiting theatre owners from collecting convenience fees on online ticket bookings lacked statutory authority under the ED Act, as Sections 7, 10, and 4(2)(b) do not empower such prohibition. The Court found that these G.O.s violated Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed an unreasonable restriction without legislative backing, being mere executive orders rather than valid laws. Furthermore, the G.O.s could not be upheld under Article 162, as they did not constitute valid State decisions fulfilling constitutional requirements. Consequently, the Court declared clauses prohibiting collection of convenience fees unconstitutional and quashed them, affirming the fundamental right of theatre owners to conduct their business without unlawful restraint. The petition was allowed, restoring the right to collect convenience fees on online ticket bookings.
The HC held that the impugned G.O.s issued by the State prohibiting theatre owners from collecting convenience fees on online ticket bookings lacked statutory authority under the ED Act, as Sections 7, 10, and 4(2)(b) do not empower such prohibition. The Court found that these G.O.s violated Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed an unreasonable restriction without legislative backing, being mere executive orders rather than valid laws. Furthermore, the G.O.s could not be upheld under Article 162, as they did not constitute valid State decisions fulfilling constitutional requirements. Consequently, the Court declared clauses prohibiting collection of convenience fees unconstitutional and quashed them, affirming the fundamental right of theatre owners to conduct their business without unlawful restraint. The petition was allowed, restoring the right to collect convenience fees on online ticket bookings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
