Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
In Section 95 insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation under Article 137 had to be assessed from the actual invocation of guarantee and the date of default, not from the Form B demand notice. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating Form B as invocation, and noted that a decree obtained within limitation could furnish a fresh cause of action. It also found the limitation computation flawed because Covid-related exclusion days were deducted without adequate basis. Letters dated 17.03.2022 and 12.07.2022, and admission of the creditor's claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP, were material on acknowledgment and limitation but had not been properly considered, so the matter was remanded for fresh, reasoned decision.
In Section 95 insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation under Article 137 had to be assessed from the actual invocation of guarantee and the date of default, not from the Form B demand notice. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating Form B as invocation, and noted that a decree obtained within limitation could furnish a fresh cause of action. It also found the limitation computation flawed because Covid-related exclusion days were deducted without adequate basis. Letters dated 17.03.2022 and 12.07.2022, and admission of the creditor's claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP, were material on acknowledgment and limitation but had not been properly considered, so the matter was remanded for fresh, reasoned decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
