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...
Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties' positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.
Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties' positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.