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...
GST notifications issued under Sections 9 and 11 operate as subordinate legislation and cannot travel beyond the GST Council's recommendation. The HC held that the impugned notifications were ultra vires only to the extent they added the expression "enforceable right in a court of law", because that phrase went beyond the recommendation's reference to an actionable claim; the remaining part of the notifications stayed valid. It further held that the GST Council has no constitutional power of ratification under Article 279A, so the 22nd meeting could not cure the unsupported addition and was without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were allowed and notices founded on the invalid part were set aside, with liberty to issue fresh notices in line with the sustained notifications.
GST notifications issued under Sections 9 and 11 operate as subordinate legislation and cannot travel beyond the GST Council's recommendation. The HC held that the impugned notifications were ultra vires only to the extent they added the expression "enforceable right in a court of law", because that phrase went beyond the recommendation's reference to an actionable claim; the remaining part of the notifications stayed valid. It further held that the GST Council has no constitutional power of ratification under Article 279A, so the 22nd meeting could not cure the unsupported addition and was without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were allowed and notices founded on the invalid part were set aside, with liberty to issue fresh notices in line with the sustained notifications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
