<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (11) TMI 382 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267573</link>
    <description>Fee continuity under the SEBI stock broker regulations applies only where an individual or partnership membership is converted into a corporate entity within the express Schedule III exception. A distinct corporate member cannot claim exemption from registration fees on the basis of earlier stock exchange arrangements or internal file notings, because administrative notings cannot override the statutory scheme or create enforceable rights. Estoppel was unavailable against the regulations, and correspondence showing that continuity was merely sought also negatived any claim that it had already accrued. The fee demand therefore remained valid, and no refund of amounts collected towards principal and interest was due.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 382 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267573</link>
      <description>Fee continuity under the SEBI stock broker regulations applies only where an individual or partnership membership is converted into a corporate entity within the express Schedule III exception. A distinct corporate member cannot claim exemption from registration fees on the basis of earlier stock exchange arrangements or internal file notings, because administrative notings cannot override the statutory scheme or create enforceable rights. Estoppel was unavailable against the regulations, and correspondence showing that continuity was merely sought also negatived any claim that it had already accrued. The fee demand therefore remained valid, and no refund of amounts collected towards principal and interest was due.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>