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...
A writ challenge to a show-cause notice was treated as premature because the notice only proposed action and the petitioner could still file objections in the statutory process; the Court therefore declined to entertain the petition, allowed a further reply to the corrigendum, and directed disposal by a reasoned and speaking order. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the CGST Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was vested with authority under the relevant rules, and a differing rubber-stamp description below the signature did not negate that competence. The jurisdictional objection was rejected.
A writ challenge to a show-cause notice was treated as premature because the notice only proposed action and the petitioner could still file objections in the statutory process; the Court therefore declined to entertain the petition, allowed a further reply to the corrigendum, and directed disposal by a reasoned and speaking order. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the CGST Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was vested with authority under the relevant rules, and a differing rubber-stamp description below the signature did not negate that competence. The jurisdictional objection was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.