Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
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.