Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC upheld the impugned judgment in full and dismissed the appeal. The court found the revocation of the IPLOI (as amended) and subsequent invocation of the unconditional bank guarantee valid under the contractual terms: the Appellants defaulted, Clause 11 and the Addendum authorized termination and invocation, and the IPLOI prevailed over any RFP discrepancy. The Section 7 application filed by Respondent No.1 was not admitted before revocation and was ultimately dismissed as infructuous, so no actionable fraud was attributable to Respondent No.1; allegations of fraud were unpleaded and unproved. The court declined to restrain invocation of the unconditional BG absent egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice.
The HC upheld the impugned judgment in full and dismissed the appeal. The court found the revocation of the IPLOI (as amended) and subsequent invocation of the unconditional bank guarantee valid under the contractual terms: the Appellants defaulted, Clause 11 and the Addendum authorized termination and invocation, and the IPLOI prevailed over any RFP discrepancy. The Section 7 application filed by Respondent No.1 was not admitted before revocation and was ultimately dismissed as infructuous, so no actionable fraud was attributable to Respondent No.1; allegations of fraud were unpleaded and unproved. The court declined to restrain invocation of the unconditional BG absent egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.