Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 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 held that the impugned order by the respondent Collector did not fall within the scope of section 4B of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, rendering an appeal under section 10A inapplicable. Consequently, the writ petition was entertained. The petitioner, operating a water park, was found prima facie eligible for exemption from entertainment tax under the 2006 policy and the Act's definition of tourism projects. The Collector's order, influenced by the Accountant General, was deemed summary and lacked a thorough examination of the petitioner's tax liability. The court recognized a prima facie case favoring the petitioner but emphasized that any interim relief must not be unconditional given the tax nature of the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, with a returnable date set for 26.08.2025.
The HC held that the impugned order by the respondent Collector did not fall within the scope of section 4B of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, rendering an appeal under section 10A inapplicable. Consequently, the writ petition was entertained. The petitioner, operating a water park, was found prima facie eligible for exemption from entertainment tax under the 2006 policy and the Act's definition of tourism projects. The Collector's order, influenced by the Accountant General, was deemed summary and lacked a thorough examination of the petitioner's tax liability. The court recognized a prima facie case favoring the petitioner but emphasized that any interim relief must not be unconditional given the tax nature of the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, with a returnable date set for 26.08.2025.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
