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...
In Section 7 insolvency proceedings, intervention by a third party is not warranted merely because it claims an interest under an unregistered agreement for sale. The Appellate Tribunal held that Order I Rule 10 CPC principles may guide, but do not directly govern, the Code; the relevant inquiry is whether the person is a necessary or proper party to adjudication of the financial creditor's claim against the corporate debtor on default. Because the appellant held no conveyance and its claim, if any, lay only against the corporate debtor, it had no legal status requiring impleadment. The refusal to intervene was upheld.
In Section 7 insolvency proceedings, intervention by a third party is not warranted merely because it claims an interest under an unregistered agreement for sale. The Appellate Tribunal held that Order I Rule 10 CPC principles may guide, but do not directly govern, the Code; the relevant inquiry is whether the person is a necessary or proper party to adjudication of the financial creditor's claim against the corporate debtor on default. Because the appellant held no conveyance and its claim, if any, lay only against the corporate debtor, it had no legal status requiring impleadment. The refusal to intervene was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.