Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that a writ petition can be entertained at the show cause notice stage where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, and rejected the objection to maintainability on that basis. It further held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated before determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74, and that a notice under Section 130 cannot rest on an alleged breach of record-keeping requirements under Section 35 alone. The impugned show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were therefore quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law and the refund claim left open.
The HC held that a writ petition can be entertained at the show cause notice stage where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, and rejected the objection to maintainability on that basis. It further held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated before determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74, and that a notice under Section 130 cannot rest on an alleged breach of record-keeping requirements under Section 35 alone. The impugned show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were therefore quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law and the refund claim left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.