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...
Non-supply of the grounds of arrest and a mechanically passed remand order rendered the arrest, detention and judicial remand illegal under the CGST Act. Applying its earlier ruling in Hari Shankar Sharma, the HC noted that the arrest memo and record did not establish due service of the grounds of arrest, and that the remand court had acted without proper application of mind to the statutory and constitutional safeguards. It held that habeas corpus remained maintainable despite judicial remand where the remand itself was vitiated, quashed the remand order, and left the respondents free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Non-supply of the grounds of arrest and a mechanically passed remand order rendered the arrest, detention and judicial remand illegal under the CGST Act. Applying its earlier ruling in Hari Shankar Sharma, the HC noted that the arrest memo and record did not establish due service of the grounds of arrest, and that the remand court had acted without proper application of mind to the statutory and constitutional safeguards. It held that habeas corpus remained maintainable despite judicial remand where the remand itself was vitiated, quashed the remand order, and left the respondents free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
