Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4) of the GST Act and Rules, 2017. The court relied on prior Division Bench decisions of the Kerala HC and Madras HC, which upheld these provisions. The Kerala HC held that the conditions imposed on purchasing dealers to avail benefits are not discriminatory under Article 14 but are legitimate regulatory requirements. Similarly, the Madras HC upheld Rule 36(4) as constitutionally valid. Given these authoritative precedents, the court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the contested statutory provisions.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4) of the GST Act and Rules, 2017. The court relied on prior Division Bench decisions of the Kerala HC and Madras HC, which upheld these provisions. The Kerala HC held that the conditions imposed on purchasing dealers to avail benefits are not discriminatory under Article 14 but are legitimate regulatory requirements. Similarly, the Madras HC upheld Rule 36(4) as constitutionally valid. Given these authoritative precedents, the court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the contested statutory provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
