FAQs on Service Charge
We answer some of the FAQs on the application of service charge on tourism services, introduced by the 6th Amendment to the Employment Act.
This author has yet to write their bio.Meanwhile lets just say that we are proud Husam Shareef contributed a whooping 274 entries.
We answer some of the FAQs on the application of service charge on tourism services, introduced by the 6th Amendment to the Employment Act.
An appeal where the Supreme Court considered when new evidence can be adduced during the appeal at the Supreme Court. The Court established the criteria that needs to be met before leave to adduce new evidence on an appeal can be granted.
A case in which the Supreme Court held that a taxpayer may challenge the MIRA’s assessment even at the Civil Court, and that “other property” stated in Section 6(a)(1) of the BPT Act must be construed to include only tangible property.
This article explores the current tax position on providing pro bono legal services, giving a view that is critical for lawyers and policymakers.
This publication gives an overview of the Public Health Emergency Act 2020 published in the Government Gazette on 22 September 2020.
This publication gives an overview of the Sixth Amendment to the Employment Act that was published in the Government Gazette on 22 September 2020.
The Public Health Emergency Act was published on 22 September 2020 and sets out provisions with regard to special procedures needed to implement temporary measures and to facilitate smooth functioning of the state authorities in order to provide safety and assistance to the individuals, families and businesses during the period of state of public health emergency declared as a result of the ongoing the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic.
From 1 October 2020 onwards, payments made to the MIRA exceeding MVR 100,000 and USD 5,000 must be paid via MIRAconnect, or using the Vaarupay card and MRTGS.
On 3 September 2020, the Regulation on Registration of Fruit and Vegetable Vendors was published.
An appeal where the Supreme Court considered whether the respondent’s employment contract was terminated in accordance with the Employment Act.