Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Where recovery of a disputed demand was stayed under section 220(6), the High Court held that the Department could not adjust a later-year refund against that stayed demand. The adjustment was treated as illegal, arbitrary and perfunctory because the stay remained operative until disposal of the first appeal. The Court exercised writ jurisdiction to interfere and directed release of the refund computed under the intimation for the later assessment year, together with statutory interest under section 244A, within the time fixed by the Court.
Where recovery of a disputed demand was stayed under section 220(6), the High Court held that the Department could not adjust a later-year refund against that stayed demand. The adjustment was treated as illegal, arbitrary and perfunctory because the stay remained operative until disposal of the first appeal. The Court exercised writ jurisdiction to interfere and directed release of the refund computed under the intimation for the later assessment year, together with statutory interest under section 244A, within the time fixed by the Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.