Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 2(28C) defining "Joint Commissioner" to include the Additional Commissioner governed the approval requirement for penalty proceedings, and a harmonious reading of the Act showed no indication in section 274(2) that the inclusive definition was excluded. Provisions that separately mentioned both officers were treated as clarificatory rather than restrictive, and reading the term otherwise would make the statutory definition ineffective. Prior approval by the Additional Commissioner was therefore valid compliance with the approval requirement, and the challenge to the penalty proceedings on want of proper sanction failed. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty preserved to pursue statutory remedies on the merits.
Section 2(28C) defining "Joint Commissioner" to include the Additional Commissioner governed the approval requirement for penalty proceedings, and a harmonious reading of the Act showed no indication in section 274(2) that the inclusive definition was excluded. Provisions that separately mentioned both officers were treated as clarificatory rather than restrictive, and reading the term otherwise would make the statutory definition ineffective. Prior approval by the Additional Commissioner was therefore valid compliance with the approval requirement, and the challenge to the penalty proceedings on want of proper sanction failed. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty preserved to pursue statutory remedies on the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.