https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326774 The court quashed the communication requesting an NOC for transfer of plot ownership and change in the Board of Directors. It directed GIDC to proceed with the changes without the NOC requirement, as the property did not belong to the defaulting party. The court found the demand notice for dues from 2003-2008 unreasonable and time-barred, emphasizing timely exercise of powers. The petitioner's challenge against the attachment notice and recovery demand from M/s. Mahalaxmi Processors was upheld, with the court ruling in favor of the petitioner without costs. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2016 15:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326774 The court quashed the communication requesting an NOC for transfer of plot ownership and change in the Board of Directors. It directed GIDC to proceed with the changes without the NOC requirement, as the property did not belong to the defaulting party. The court found the demand notice for dues from 2003-2008 unreasonable and time-barred, emphasizing timely exercise of powers. The petitioner's challenge against the attachment notice and recovery demand from M/s. Mahalaxmi Processors was upheld, with the court ruling in favor of the petitioner without costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326774