Search Results for "retrospective demand"

282 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 282 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals of Industrial Units Seeking Rebate on Electricity Tariff in Goa. Rebate Scheme Rescinded Before Power Connections; Subsequent Notifications Declared Void Ab Initio.

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of civil appeals filed by industrial units (Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd., Karthik Alloys Ltd., Karthik Inductions Ltd....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Writ Petition Challenging Eviction Decree for Rent Default. Tenant Failed to Pay Rent for Over a Decade, No Dispute as to Standard Rent or Permitted Increases, Case Falls Under Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act.

The dispute pertains to a suit for eviction filed by the landlady, Mrs. Kusum Pandurang Keni, against the tenant, Sudhir Kumar Sengupta (since decease...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Employee Convicted of Theft While Under Suspension — Limitation Bar Applied for Delayed Challenge. The Court held that a removal order under Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules is not a continuing wrong and delay of 13 years cannot be condoned without sufficient cause.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Interest Demand on Customs Duty for Provisional Assessment Prior to Amendment. Interest under Section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be levied retrospectively for period before its insertion when provisional assessment under Section 18 did not provide for interest.

The petitioner, M/s. R. K. Chemicals, a proprietorship firm, imported a consignment of Mono Sodium Glutamate in 1996. There was a dispute regarding th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...