Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
A High Court decision on tax litigation reiterated that condonation of delay depends only on sufficient cause, and prolonged administrative inaction, unexplained gaps and file movement without justification do not warrant indulgence; the State is held to the same diligence standard as any litigant. It also reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used for rehearing unless there is an apparent error or comparable ground. On the tax issue, the Court applied strict construction of the notification and held that denatured spirit is distinct from ethyl alcohol; because the 30.03.2002 notification covered only rectified spirit, neutral spirit and ethyl alcohol, it did not impose entry tax on denatured spirit.
A High Court decision on tax litigation reiterated that condonation of delay depends only on sufficient cause, and prolonged administrative inaction, unexplained gaps and file movement without justification do not warrant indulgence; the State is held to the same diligence standard as any litigant. It also reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used for rehearing unless there is an apparent error or comparable ground. On the tax issue, the Court applied strict construction of the notification and held that denatured spirit is distinct from ethyl alcohol; because the 30.03.2002 notification covered only rectified spirit, neutral spirit and ethyl alcohol, it did not impose entry tax on denatured spirit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.