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...
Reward under the informant guidelines was treated as ex gratia and subject to the competent authority's discretion, with relaxation beyond the prescribed ceiling resting with the Full Board. The informant had accepted that the payment was non-contractual and would not be challenged in court. After re-examining the tax recovery, supplied information and weightage methodology, the Board recalculated the reward and found the earlier recommendation incorrect. The Court declined to substitute its own assessment, holding that writ interference was unavailable absent manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness. The enhanced claim was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.
Reward under the informant guidelines was treated as ex gratia and subject to the competent authority's discretion, with relaxation beyond the prescribed ceiling resting with the Full Board. The informant had accepted that the payment was non-contractual and would not be challenged in court. After re-examining the tax recovery, supplied information and weightage methodology, the Board recalculated the reward and found the earlier recommendation incorrect. The Court declined to substitute its own assessment, holding that writ interference was unavailable absent manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness. The enhanced claim was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.