Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Pramod Premchand Shah Versus Ratan N. Tata

Revocation of the leave granted to the Plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Held that:- The answer must, in turn, depend on the very position of the others who are claimed to be represented insofar as their interest in the suit is concerned. If by its very nature, their interest in the suit is not the same as the plaintiff, the application for leave must fail. If it is the same, the application must succeed. As we have noted above, by its very nature the interes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y them, there is a case for joinder of those others under Order 1 Rule 1. If not originally joined, they may seek joinder under Order 1 Rule 10. But it is still not a case for leave under Order 1 Rule 8. Apart from impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10, the law also envisages several other ways of dealing with such situations. There could be clubbing of several suits for trial (if several individual suits are filed) or there could even be a test case (if other suits could later follow). .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

irst place, there was no warrant in allowing the Plaintiff to represent them. In the present case, the non-promoter shareholders, who do not want reinstatement of Mistry, would be bound to accept his reinstatement if the Plaintiffs were to succeed and on top of it, suffer such reinstatement as something which was prayed for on their behalf or for their benefit. To avoid such predicament, they would be forced to join the suit and defend it, when they really had no intention or obligation to do so .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and Ms. Eesha Mohapatra For The Defndant : Shiraz Rustomjee, Sr. Adv. Shailesh Poria, Janak Dwarkadas, Sr. Adv., Jehaan Mehta, Ms. Shireen Pochkhanawalla, Nirav Barot, Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla, Zal Andhyarujina, Jehangir Mistry, Ms. Shruti Sardesai, Ms. Namrata Parekh, Jay Sanklecha, Aditya Sikka, Mutahhar Khan, Rajesh Satpalkar, Dr. Birendra Saraf, Ankoosh Mehta, Aviral Sahai, Ms. Dhwani Shah, Bhalchandra Palav and Aditya Sikka JUDGMENT 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicants (origin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is filed purportedly as a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code on behalf of all the non-promoter shareholders of Defendant Nos. 21 to 27, who have all been similarly affected by reason of the illegal actions that have been taken at the behest of Defendant No. 1 by Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 9 and 12 to 20 . Defendant No. 1 is the Director and interim Chairman of Defendant No. 2, Tata Sons Ltd., which is said to be a core investment company that holds shares in companies of the T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he interim Chairman, both of which actions are said to be contrary to the Articles of Association of Tata Sons Ltd. and in total disregard of corporate governance and disclosure norms and against the best interest of public shareholders such as the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that after the ouster of Mistry and appointment of Tata in his place, Tata Sons Ltd. abused its position as a dominant shareholder and holding company in the Tata group to cause the listed companies, namely, Defendant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

December 2016 (in the aftermath of his ouster and steps taken by the group companies for his removal/ouster as chairman/director). It is submitted that there is a collective loss or erosion in value of shares of over ₹ 41,000 crores in Defendant Nos. 21 to 27 companies. The Plaintiffs, accordingly, pray for a declaration that the removal of Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons was illegal and contrary to the interest of shareholders of the Tata Group of companies. The Plaintiffs a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urt granted leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code enabling the Plaintiffs to sue the Defendants on behalf, or for the benefit, of numerous persons having the same interest in the suit. 2.4 This leave is sought to be revoked by the Defendants named above on various grounds including lack of commonality of interest among the Plaintiffs and other 'non-promoter shareholders' of Defendant companies, who, it is submitted, do not in fact from a class so as to enable the Plaintiffs to sue on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hold shares, learned Counsel submits that the grievance of each individual Plaintiff in this behalf is distinct and separate from the grievance/s of others. The Plaintiffs are not shareholders of each of the seven companies arraigned as party defendants (i.e. Defendant Nos. 21 to 27); they are shareholders of one or more of these companies, each of whom has distinct Articles of Association, and a separate and independent board of directors. It is submitted that the grievance in respect of ouste .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such interest in common with other individual non-promoter shareholders of these seven companies. Learned Counsel submits that the non-promoter shareholders collectively of these seven companies, or even separately in case of each company, do not from a distinct class for the purposes of a representative suit such as the present. It is submitted that for forming such a class there must be a common interest and grievance in the suit, and a common benefit sought in the suit for the Plaintiffs and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed both the ousters of Mistry from the chairmanship/boards of the seven companies and the fall in share value of the companies. In that sense, it is submitted, the right to relief to each of the Plaintiffs arises out of the same act or transaction and this right is shared by them in common with other non-promoter shareholders of the seven companies. Learned Counsel submits that there is no need to show, as it is made clear by the Explanation to Order 1 Rule 8, that all persons, i.e. each of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons of Madras and our High Court, respectively, in Kodia Goundar v. Velandi Goundar AIR 1955 Madras 281 and Kaira District Co.Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Kishore Shantilal Shah 1982 SCC OnLine Bom32, in support of his contentions. 5. Mr. Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No. 11 (Cyrus Mistry), also makes submissions on law, making it clear at the outset that his client does not wish to take sides in this representative suit and has nothing to say on the merits of the controver .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icular company to claim relief in respect of fall in share prices of that company as a result of ouster of Mistry from Tata Sons Ltd. Learned Counsel argues that Order 1 Rule 8 formulates a methodology to avoid similar suits on the same cause of action, both from the standpoint of the actual/prospective plaintiffs, and the defendants. Sub- Rule (1) of Rule 8 enables one or more persons to sue, with the leave of the court, on behalf of others, whilst Sub-Rule (6) protects the defendant/s from sim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ta companies, of which such others are shareholders, for the respective falls in the share prices of those companies, is an altogether different matter. It is rather an issue of joinder of causes of action and plaintiffs, respectively governed by Order 2 Rules 3, 4 and 5, and Order 1 Rule 1. What we have to consider here is, whether, assuming that there were seven different suits in respect of seven individual companies, shareholders of each company could be said to have community of interest fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of permissibility or admissibility of grant of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 further, even if the test suggested by Mr. Dwarkadas is right. 7. With this preface, we may now turn to the issue of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 in the present case. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8 permits one or more persons to sue (or defend) with leave of the court on behalf of, or for the benefit of, numerous others provided that such others have the same interest in one suit. Sub-Rule (2) provides for a notice of institution of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

whose benefit, the suit is instituted (or defended). The Explanation appended to the Rule makes it clear that for claiming the same interest in one suit , it is not necessary to have the same cause of action as the persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is filed (or defended). That is the scheme of Order 1 Rule 8. This scheme is an exception to the general rule that all persons interested in the suit must be made parties to it. The object of this exception is clearly to facilita .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al rule, by its very nature, must be that the interest of persons interested must be really represented by those that file or defend the suit. For if that interest be clashing or different from the persons suing or defending on their behalf, or for their benefit, various anomalies would ensue if these latter were permitted to sue or defend on the former's behalf or for their benefit, and any decree in the suit were to bind the former. 8. That seems to be pretty clear as a matter of principle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

crual of which is complained of in the suit; the second is the injury or grievance resulting from any actual breach or accrual on the part of the opponent; and the third is the relief that is claimed in the suit. Each person having the same interest in the suit must have commonality with the plaintiff, or the defendant, as the case may be, in respect of each of these three components. If the suit is filed or defended for others, such others must, therefore, form a class having a common interest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uit, flowers, vegetables, roots or herbs within the meaning of the Covent Garden Market Act, 1828, brought an action against the appellant, the Duke of Bedford. The action was brought on behalf of themselves and all growers of fruit, flowers, vegetables, roots or herbs. The grievance of the respondents in the suit was that the Covent Garden Market Act gave various preferential rights in respect of the use of the market to the class of growers represented by them; that the Duke, in his management .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

taken out by the Duke to set aside the writ and all other proceedings, was of the view that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue on behalf of themselves and all other growers of fruit, etc. within the meaning of the Act and stayed the action in respect of all matters and causes alleged in a representative capacity. The learned Judge ordered dismissal of the action unless the plaintiffs elected to proceed in respect of their individual and personal causes of action. The Court of Appeal dischar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that class. The learned Judge also held that Order 16 of Rule 9 (which is in pari materia with our Order 1 Rule 8), which provided for persons suing or being sued as representing a class, was not restricted to apply only in a case where such persons have or claim some beneficial proprietary right, which they assert or defend. The learned Judge considered the old rule in the Court of Chancery, simple and perfectly well understood, that the Court required the presence of all parties interested in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

action is countenanced. The rule was stated thus: Given a common interest and a common grievance, a representative suit was in order if the relief sought was in its nature beneficial to all whom the plaintiff proposed to represent. The learned Judge noted that all growers in that case had the same rights; they relied on one and the same Act of Parliament as their common charter; they were aggrieved by the same acts of the Duke in denying those rights; and the relief sought was beneficial to all .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er to balance their housing account in accordance with the obligations imposed on them by the Act. They served on the tenants the documents giving notice of their scheme to increase rent. The proposal was not to increase rents uniformly but having regard to the individual financial circumstances of the tenants. The scheme was not liked by the tenants and a tenants' protection association was formed. The four plaintiffs, with the support of some 9,000 other tenants, began the action for a dec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng a representative action. The trial court struck out the writ and stayed all further proceedings. In the plaintiffs' appeal, Evershed M.R., who wrote the leading judgment of the Appeal Court, was of the view that at first blush, one might be disposed to say that if there are 13,000 tenants with tenancies in identical form, then the case is one which the rule (Rule 9 of Order 16) would be designed to meet, on the grounds at least of convenience. The learned Judge, however, was of the consid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o be assumed that all these 13,000 persons had this common right in the sense of a common interest, the grievance and the beneficial nature of the relief sought was not a matter in common between the tenants. The differentiation proposed in the scheme operated so that the more affluent of the tenants would end up subsidizing the less affluent. In fact, as was pointed out in that case, about 5,000 of the 13,000 tenants, who were of less affluent circumstances, suffered no increase of rent at all. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the subsidized group. (The Corporation certainly had the right to increase the rent to meet its budget. An alternative scheme of increase in rent, say, uniform increase, would in fact be less beneficial to the subsidized.) Jenkins L.J, who agreed with Evershed M.R., noted that in order to determine whether the action was properly constituted as a representative action, it was necessary to look into the nature of the dispute far enough to be able to see what the true character of the alleged gri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve considerations of that nature , the scheme charged rent by reference to the purse, and as such it was said to be ultra vires. What was argued was that it was beyond the powers of the defendants to charge differential rents according to the means and circumstances of the tenants, because the result of that would be that some tenants, those in more affluent circumstances, would, in effect, be subsidizing by the increases in rent imposed in their cases the tenants in less affluent circumstances .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e facts of our case make out such interest and justify the leave granted under Order1 Rule 8. The present suit is filed on behalf of non-promoter members of Defendant Nos. 21 to 27. These members, in the first place, do not form a class for the purpose of the interest in the suit . No doubt each of these non-promoter members has the same right, breach of which is complained of in the suit, namely, the proprietary interest in his or her share in the particular Tata company and the corresponding r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e suit, who may share the interest with the group, is neither here nor there, since that does not make the group sought to be represented any the less a combination of numerous parsons within the meaning of the rule.) But the commonality within the group of numerous persons, in the present case, ends there. They cannot be said to share the same grievance. The grievance, here, is the ouster of Mistry as the Chairman of Tata Sons at the meeting of its Board of Directors, the other Tata companies t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tter, be the only ones, amongst non-promoter shareholders of these companies, who have such perception. A drop in the share price, which may be seen as a temporary phenomenon brought about by immediate circumstances, in the first place, affects different shareholders differently. It is, for example, a well known fact that shareholders holding shares on a long term basis prefer to buy shares when the prices dip due to current market forces with a view to improve their average buying price. These .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lders as to the outcome of a board meeting or a board resolution. Some may support a board decision, whilst the others may not. In short, each of the non-promoter shareholders in the present case may have the same type of proprietary right in the share and thereby, the same interest in protecting its value, but so far as the complaint of prejudice to that interest is concerned, other non-promoter shareholders may not have a common cause with the Plaintiffs. It is this prejudice or accrual of lia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

other directors of Tata Sons that followed such oster caused a financial loss. As for the other non- promoter shareholders, the shoe may be on the other foot. Their perception may well be that it is Mistry and his promoter group who were conducting themselves against the interests of Tata Group of Companies, which prompted the Tata Sons Board, in the first place, to act the way they did and it is the resistance offered by Mistry and others to this action and the resultant corporate battle, which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation. As for the reversal of the board decisions and reinstatement of Mistry, an overwhelaning majority, or, for that matter, every other non- promoter shareholder, may well choose to back the board and may not want the return of Mistry. There is no way, at any rate, that the relief can be considered to be beneficial to such others. Mr. Madon tried to distinguish between the expressions on behalf of and for the benefit of in clause (a) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 8. Learned Counsel submitted that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l, be read as 'and' here. In any event, the two expressions cannot be read as mutually exclusive. You may sue on behalf of another, though not necessarily for his benefit, for he may concur in your benefit. But you can never sue on behalf of another, when such suit is to his detriment or against his interest. In the present case, the Plaintiffs cannot sue on behalf of others who resist Mistry's reinstatement. The relief claimed would, in that case, be in fact to the detriment of such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; cause, and, secondly, if some individuals, who are claimed to be represented here, have a different perception and do not agree with the Plaintiffs, they may well choose to join the suit as defendants and oppose the suit. There is no merit in either of these suggestions. The fact that there are actually some others who support the Plaintiffs is not determinative of the issue. That is a mere coincidence. The question is whether there is a class of persons having the same interest in the suit an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ery nature the interest in this suit of others of the alleged class is not the same as the Plaintiffs. If that is so, it does not matter that some others of that class have actually come forward in support of the Plaintiffs. That only means that there are, as it turns out, some others who claim the same right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction, or series of acts or transactions. If that is so and if common questions of law or fact would arise if separate suit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

could later follow). 14. The second contention of Mr. Madon is also a non-starter. The same argument was advanced in the case of Cardiff Corporation (supra). The Plaintiffs' contention there was: The person who says: I do not want to be represented by you can ask to be joined as a defendant. The Court of Appeal rejected the contention, holding that such a result involves a serious inroad upon the ordinary individual's liberty to make this own terms with some other party with whom he is u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etriment, will bind them. That would be clearly unjust, if, in the first place, there was no warrant in allowing the Plaintiff to represent them. In the present case, the non-promoter shareholders, who do not want reinstatement of Mistry, would be bound to accept his reinstatement if the Plaintiffs were to succeed and on top of it, suffer such reinstatement as something which was prayed for on their behalf or for their benefit. To avoid such predicament, they would be forced to join the suit and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

facts were common; the housing board had made a demand on all, after purportedly making a final determination of price, the basis of which demand was equally applicable to all the allottees and the plea of the plaintiff against such demand was available to all of them. The Supreme Court, in the premises, upheld the leave granted by the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 8. The argument before the Court was that each of these allottees was interested individually in fighting out the demand separatel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: GST on RCM on rent in a unregistered state

Forum: COMPOSITION SCHEME

Forum: Input Tax Credit - Reg

Forum: GST Invoice

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Highlight: Levy of additions tax u/s 115O on distribution of dividend - shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder - not to be bifurcated as agriculture and non-agriculture dividend - SC

Highlight: Rate of GST on old and scrap buses - 28% or 18% - at such initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. - HC

Forum: Rent a cab operator

Highlight: In view of amendment made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal, SC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Highlight: Validity of Assessment Order - period of limitation u/s 153 (2A) is applicable even if the entire order was not set aside but matter was remanded back for for limited aspects with directions - HC

News: Note ban was a shake-up, achieved its main objectives

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Highlight: Levying interest u/s 234C - interest is to be charged on the returned income and not on assessed income.

Highlight: Accrual of income - sale of right to develop and sell incentive FSI under LOI - till the conditions of LOI are fulfilled transfer is not complete and income does not accrue to the assessee

Highlight: TPA - determination of ALP - TP adjustment by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) is not sustainable on protective basis having no statutory mandate.

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Forum: GSTR 3B Rectification

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Article: RCM Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version