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...
In writ proceedings, a taxpayer who received a show cause notice alleging wilful suppression and invoking Section 74, but filed no reply, made payment without protest, and accepted before the adjudicating authority that tax, interest and penalty would be paid, was held estopped from taking a contrary stand later. The Court treated the recorded admission and unchallenged adjudication note as decisive, and held that prior voluntary payment after audit detection did not by itself defeat Section 74 where the allegation of suppression remained uncontested. On that basis, no interference under Article 226 was made and the writ challenge failed.
In writ proceedings, a taxpayer who received a show cause notice alleging wilful suppression and invoking Section 74, but filed no reply, made payment without protest, and accepted before the adjudicating authority that tax, interest and penalty would be paid, was held estopped from taking a contrary stand later. The Court treated the recorded admission and unchallenged adjudication note as decisive, and held that prior voluntary payment after audit detection did not by itself defeat Section 74 where the allegation of suppression remained uncontested. On that basis, no interference under Article 226 was made and the writ challenge failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.