Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Liability of a private company director under Section 89 of the GST enactments places the burden of proof on the director to demonstrate that non-recovery of tax is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty; the High Court quashed the impugned recovery notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, permitting the director to file a proper reply and discharge the statutory burden within two weeks. Failure to comply permits respondents to proceed to recover tax as if the writ were dismissed.
Liability of a private company director under Section 89 of the GST enactments places the burden of proof on the director to demonstrate that non-recovery of tax is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty; the High Court quashed the impugned recovery notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, permitting the director to file a proper reply and discharge the statutory burden within two weeks. Failure to comply permits respondents to proceed to recover tax as if the writ were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
