https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296548 The court upheld the first respondent's right to demand a 30% differential premium for the transfer of an industrial plot, in accordance with the circular dated 12th May, 1998. The petitioner's challenge against this demand under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was rejected, as the court determined that the transfer did not qualify as involuntary and fell under the category of non-formal transfer, warranting the differential premium. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the circulars and the specific circumstances of the case. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:48:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296548 The court upheld the first respondent's right to demand a 30% differential premium for the transfer of an industrial plot, in accordance with the circular dated 12th May, 1998. The petitioner's challenge against this demand under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was rejected, as the court determined that the transfer did not qualify as involuntary and fell under the category of non-formal transfer, warranting the differential premium. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the circulars and the specific circumstances of the case. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296548