Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96587 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.