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...
For insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation runs from the demand notice invoking the guarantee and the guarantor's failure to pay within the stipulated period, not from the corporate debtor's default record. The Appellate Tribunal held that the notice dated 25.10.2019 validly invoked the personal guarantees, the relevant default date was 24.12.2019, and the Section 95 applications filed on 31.03.2022 were therefore within limitation. It also held that the absence of the revival letter with the original application was irrelevant to limitation, and that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the petitions as time-barred or in finding inconsistent default dates. The impugned orders were set aside and the petitions revived for fresh consideration under Section 100.
For insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation runs from the demand notice invoking the guarantee and the guarantor's failure to pay within the stipulated period, not from the corporate debtor's default record. The Appellate Tribunal held that the notice dated 25.10.2019 validly invoked the personal guarantees, the relevant default date was 24.12.2019, and the Section 95 applications filed on 31.03.2022 were therefore within limitation. It also held that the absence of the revival letter with the original application was irrelevant to limitation, and that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the petitions as time-barred or in finding inconsistent default dates. The impugned orders were set aside and the petitions revived for fresh consideration under Section 100.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
