Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 
