Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
The AT affirms that alleged collusion between bank officials and the directors of the company is not foreclosed and must be adjudicated by the Special Judge, PMLA, in the trial court. The AT holds that where two statutes conflict, the later enactment prevails absent a saving clause. The liquidator of the company is granted leave to move the Special Judge, PMLA, under section 8(7) of the PMLA for permission to auction the specified property to satisfy the consortium of banks and other creditors; the liquidator must undertake to deposit any surplus realisation in an FDR with the Respondent and the Special Judge will adjudicate its disposal after conclusion of the PMLA trial. Appeal dismissed.
The AT affirms that alleged collusion between bank officials and the directors of the company is not foreclosed and must be adjudicated by the Special Judge, PMLA, in the trial court. The AT holds that where two statutes conflict, the later enactment prevails absent a saving clause. The liquidator of the company is granted leave to move the Special Judge, PMLA, under section 8(7) of the PMLA for permission to auction the specified property to satisfy the consortium of banks and other creditors; the liquidator must undertake to deposit any surplus realisation in an FDR with the Respondent and the Special Judge will adjudicate its disposal after conclusion of the PMLA trial. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
