Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4817 
Join Channel 
