Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2241 to 2260 of 96177 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 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
