Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
