Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Limitation for Section 95 insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor ran from the date of actual invocation of the guarantee under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Communications dated 29.01.2016 and 30.11.2018 were held not to be loan recall notices or effective invocations, as they only referred to default and possible legal action. The clear invocation occurred only on 03.08.2020, when the creditor expressly called upon the guarantor to pay. The proceedings initiated thereafter were therefore within limitation, and the NCLAT upheld their admission and dismissed the appeal.
Limitation for Section 95 insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor ran from the date of actual invocation of the guarantee under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Communications dated 29.01.2016 and 30.11.2018 were held not to be loan recall notices or effective invocations, as they only referred to default and possible legal action. The clear invocation occurred only on 03.08.2020, when the creditor expressly called upon the guarantor to pay. The proceedings initiated thereafter were therefore within limitation, and the NCLAT upheld their admission and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.