International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6921 to 6940 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld.
A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
