Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
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.