Case study examines Trade Refuse Charges (TRC) collected by BMC in Mumbai from businesses within its municipal area based on a circular.
Supreme Court held that for calculating limitation period for filing an appeal to NCLAT, the date on which order was pronounced and the time taken to provide certified copy is to be excluded.
Supreme Court held that User Development Fee (UDF) is in the form of ‘tax or cess’ collected for financing the cost of future projects and is not a consideration for services provided by the assessee to the customer, visitors, passengers, vendors etc.
Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be invoked against third parties and that civil remedies available under the law must be pursued for recovery of dues from such parties.
Delve into the Supreme Court judgment on procedural defects and substantive rights in the case of Ramnath Exports Pvt Ltd Vs Vinita Mehta. Learn about the implications of procedural irregularities on litigants’ rights.
In a judgment issued on May 12, SC highlighted serious lapses and uncertainty in implementation of Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, which has forced many working women to leave their jobs.
Conclusion: Arrears of property tax and water tax until the date of confirmation of sale, i.e., 04.07.2003, would qualify as the expenses for “preserving, realising or getting in” the assets of the company and thus, should have to be paid in priority by the appellant OL.
Supreme Court held that amended notification no. 164 of 2003 dated 11th November 2003 shifting the concessional benefit from “High Speed Cold-Set Web Offset Rotary Printing Machine with minimum speed of 70,000 copies per hour” to “High Speed Cold-set Web Offset Rotary Double Width Four Plate Wide Printing Machine with a minimum speed of 70,000 copies per hour” is in line with provision of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
SC held that assessee was not the owner of bitumen for Section 69A, and bitumen could not be classified as an ‘other valuable article’ under section 69A.
Supreme Court held that as appellant company and accused are two separate entities and appellant company is not connected to the alleged crime, the freeze order against the appellant company’s property is not legally tenable.
