Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable in a contractual dispute involving a State instrumentality because the challenge concerned the applicability and interpretation of a State order amending the Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules, not merely a private contract remedy. The respondent corporation, being under State control and bound by the governing rules and circulars, was subject to Clause 36E providing equitable adjustment when tax rates change during performance. Clause 45.1 could not override that later adjustment mechanism. Denial of the revised GST benefit, when extended to other State bodies, was arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. The rejection letter was quashed and refund of the differential GST with interest directed.
Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable in a contractual dispute involving a State instrumentality because the challenge concerned the applicability and interpretation of a State order amending the Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules, not merely a private contract remedy. The respondent corporation, being under State control and bound by the governing rules and circulars, was subject to Clause 36E providing equitable adjustment when tax rates change during performance. Clause 45.1 could not override that later adjustment mechanism. Denial of the revised GST benefit, when extended to other State bodies, was arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. The rejection letter was quashed and refund of the differential GST with interest directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.