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...
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
