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...
Writ jurisdiction was refused in GST adjudication because the controversy was amenable to the statutory appeal. The High Court held that proceedings under sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act operate in distinct fields, so exoneration under section 73 did not bar action under section 74 on the material before the authorities. It also held that appraisal and reappraisal of evidence, including consideration of additional evidence, lay within the appellate process. The need to make a statutory pre-deposit was not a sufficient ground to bypass the appeal, and the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy on merits.
Writ jurisdiction was refused in GST adjudication because the controversy was amenable to the statutory appeal. The High Court held that proceedings under sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act operate in distinct fields, so exoneration under section 73 did not bar action under section 74 on the material before the authorities. It also held that appraisal and reappraisal of evidence, including consideration of additional evidence, lay within the appellate process. The need to make a statutory pre-deposit was not a sufficient ground to bypass the appeal, and the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
