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...
Refund under GST can be withheld only when the statutory conditions for invoking Section 54(11) are actually satisfied, including a pending proceeding or appeal; the mere possibility that the State may file an appeal is insufficient. The High Court held that the authority could not refuse to process a refund arising from an appellate order simply because the appeal period had not expired, as that showed no conscious application of mind and no valid basis under Rule 92(2). The refusal was set aside and the refund claim remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the taxpayer and passing a reasoned order.
Refund under GST can be withheld only when the statutory conditions for invoking Section 54(11) are actually satisfied, including a pending proceeding or appeal; the mere possibility that the State may file an appeal is insufficient. The High Court held that the authority could not refuse to process a refund arising from an appellate order simply because the appeal period had not expired, as that showed no conscious application of mind and no valid basis under Rule 92(2). The refusal was set aside and the refund claim remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the taxpayer and passing a reasoned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.