Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The HC dismissed the writ challenging a suo motu revision order by an Additional Commissioner under s.23(4)(a) of the OST Act, holding the Additional Commissioner validly exercised delegated revisionary power and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-initiate revision once such delegated power was exercised. By virtue of the non-obstante clause in s.23(4)(d) and the delegation scheme under s.3/Rule 3, any remedy lies by way of appeal to the Commissioner under s.23(4)(c)(ii). The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order dated 31 May 2025 before the Commissioner and may raise all available grounds; the writ petition was disposed.
The HC dismissed the writ challenging a suo motu revision order by an Additional Commissioner under s.23(4)(a) of the OST Act, holding the Additional Commissioner validly exercised delegated revisionary power and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-initiate revision once such delegated power was exercised. By virtue of the non-obstante clause in s.23(4)(d) and the delegation scheme under s.3/Rule 3, any remedy lies by way of appeal to the Commissioner under s.23(4)(c)(ii). The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order dated 31 May 2025 before the Commissioner and may raise all available grounds; the writ petition was disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
