Maintainability of a Section 7 insolvency petition against a financial service provider denied; appeal dismissed for non maintainability and complex d...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6201 to 6220 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
VCES benefit denied because the declarant failed to pay the mandatory 50% pre deposit by the specified cut off date and filed a declaration barred by the second proviso to Section 106(1) for a subsequent period where an order of determination already existed; the designated authority validly rejected the declaration after due process. The tribunal held that the scheme's procedural timetable and stipulations are inviolable, that courts cannot extend amnesty timelines, and that the designated authority possesses inherent and ancillary powers to scrutinise and refuse nonconforming declarations. The appellate challenge was dismissed for lack of merit.
VCES benefit denied because the declarant failed to pay the mandatory 50% pre deposit by the specified cut off date and filed a declaration barred by the second proviso to Section 106(1) for a subsequent period where an order of determination already existed; the designated authority validly rejected the declaration after due process. The tribunal held that the scheme's procedural timetable and stipulations are inviolable, that courts cannot extend amnesty timelines, and that the designated authority possesses inherent and ancillary powers to scrutinise and refuse nonconforming declarations. The appellate challenge was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
