Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96556 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.