Transfer fee demand on leasehold land transfer by statutory corporation challenged; petition dismissed for fact suppression and inapplicable IBC Secti...
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
