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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The article explains that a writ petition challenging an appellate order was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available before the GST Appellate Tribunal. It notes that questions on the effect of a departmental circular and the application of amended Rule 89(5) could be examined in that appeal, so the High Court need not exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. Relying on Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, it reiterates that circulars reflect the executive view and cannot override the statute or bind courts. The petitioner was given liberty to pursue the statutory appeal within the notified period.
The article explains that a writ petition challenging an appellate order was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available before the GST Appellate Tribunal. It notes that questions on the effect of a departmental circular and the application of amended Rule 89(5) could be examined in that appeal, so the High Court need not exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. Relying on Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, it reiterates that circulars reflect the executive view and cannot override the statute or bind courts. The petitioner was given liberty to pursue the statutory appeal within the notified period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.