Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Writ interference with a GST show cause notice and adjudication order was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available and no breach of natural justice or statutory provision was shown. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings, filed replies, and had not raised before adjudication the plea that only part of the notice was served. The reference to 2021 in the relied-upon documents was accepted as an inadvertent typographical error, as the demand related to October 2018 to November 2019. The order in original covered the relevant periods and showed that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity of hearing; the disputed factual issues were left to the appellate authority.
Writ interference with a GST show cause notice and adjudication order was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available and no breach of natural justice or statutory provision was shown. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings, filed replies, and had not raised before adjudication the plea that only part of the notice was served. The reference to 2021 in the relied-upon documents was accepted as an inadvertent typographical error, as the demand related to October 2018 to November 2019. The order in original covered the relevant periods and showed that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity of hearing; the disputed factual issues were left to the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
