Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Where a debt had been adjudicated by the DRT and a recovery certificate issued, the liability was treated as a financial debt, and section 7 CIRP could be initiated within three years from the recovery certificate, or at the latest from the DRT order. The applications against the corporate guarantors were therefore not barred by limitation, and they could not reopen limitation by relying only on the original NPA date where joint and several liability had already been fastened. The Tribunal also found that the applications contained material particulars by referring to the DRT orders, the recovery certificate and the quantified default, so rejection for want of a separately stated default date was erroneous. The impugned orders were quashed and the matters remitted for decision on merits.
Where a debt had been adjudicated by the DRT and a recovery certificate issued, the liability was treated as a financial debt, and section 7 CIRP could be initiated within three years from the recovery certificate, or at the latest from the DRT order. The applications against the corporate guarantors were therefore not barred by limitation, and they could not reopen limitation by relying only on the original NPA date where joint and several liability had already been fastened. The Tribunal also found that the applications contained material particulars by referring to the DRT orders, the recovery certificate and the quantified default, so rejection for want of a separately stated default date was erroneous. The impugned orders were quashed and the matters remitted for decision on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
