Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without any saving clause, meant that pending proceedings based solely on alleged contravention of that rule could not continue. The Court applied Rayala Corporation and Kolhapur Canesugar Works to hold that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve proceedings after omission of a rule, as distinct from repeal of a Central Act or Regulation. As the order-in-original and consequential demands rested entirely on the omitted rule, they were unsustainable and were quashed.
Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without any saving clause, meant that pending proceedings based solely on alleged contravention of that rule could not continue. The Court applied Rayala Corporation and Kolhapur Canesugar Works to hold that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve proceedings after omission of a rule, as distinct from repeal of a Central Act or Regulation. As the order-in-original and consequential demands rested entirely on the omitted rule, they were unsustainable and were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.