Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
A writ petition challenging a statutory corporation's demand for...
Transfer fee demand on leasehold land transfer by statutory corporation challenged; petition dismissed for fact suppression and inapplicable IBC Section 31.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
A writ petition challenging a statutory corporation's demand for transfer fee on leasehold land was held non-maintainable because the petitioner invoked Article 226 by wilful suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, including selectively quoting the insolvency appellate order to portray recorded submissions as judicial observations; on this ground alone, discretionary relief was denied and the petition failed. On merits, the court found the transaction involved transfer of leasehold interest (not merely a change in shareholding), making precedents inapplicable, and rejected the "clean slate" plea under Section 31 IBC because the approved resolution plan did not extinguish the transfer-fee claim and the insolvency fora had expressly left it open to be pursued before the competent authority; the challenge was dismissed. - HC
A writ petition challenging a statutory corporation's demand for transfer fee on leasehold land was held non-maintainable because the petitioner invoked Article 226 by wilful suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, including selectively quoting the insolvency appellate order to portray recorded submissions as judicial observations; on this ground alone, discretionary relief was denied and the petition failed. On merits, the court found the transaction involved transfer of leasehold interest (not merely a change in shareholding), making precedents inapplicable, and rejected the "clean slate" plea under Section 31 IBC because the approved resolution plan did not extinguish the transfer-fee claim and the insolvency fora had expressly left it open to be pursued before the competent authority; the challenge was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
