Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
An advance ruling under the GST law is binding on the applicant, but that binding effect does not bar High Court review under Article 226 on limited grounds such as jurisdictional error, error of law, breach of natural justice or perversity; such challenges to advance rulings should be listed before the Division Bench, not a Single Judge. On classification, the Court held that retaining the impugned view on cut tobacco would create unequal tax treatment for similarly placed manufacturers producing the same product, contrary to the equality principle. The advance rulings and the challenged order were set aside, and the writ appeal was allowed.
An advance ruling under the GST law is binding on the applicant, but that binding effect does not bar High Court review under Article 226 on limited grounds such as jurisdictional error, error of law, breach of natural justice or perversity; such challenges to advance rulings should be listed before the Division Bench, not a Single Judge. On classification, the Court held that retaining the impugned view on cut tobacco would create unequal tax treatment for similarly placed manufacturers producing the same product, contrary to the equality principle. The advance rulings and the challenged order were set aside, and the writ appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
