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 quashed the impugned appellate order that partially cancelled MEIS scrips on the ground of excess availing, finding the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind or provide reasons under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act read with Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The court noted the retrospective cancellation was impermissible as the scrips had expired before initiation of cancellation proceedings. The alleged contravention related solely to foreign trade policy and did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 10(a), (b), or (c), with no proper justification under Rule 10(d). The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, directing the authority to consider the grounds raised and record reasoned findings. The petitions were allowed by way of remand.
The HC quashed the impugned appellate order that partially cancelled MEIS scrips on the ground of excess availing, finding the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind or provide reasons under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act read with Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The court noted the retrospective cancellation was impermissible as the scrips had expired before initiation of cancellation proceedings. The alleged contravention related solely to foreign trade policy and did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 10(a), (b), or (c), with no proper justification under Rule 10(d). The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, directing the authority to consider the grounds raised and record reasoned findings. The petitions were allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
