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" ?
Registered security interest under SARFAESI was treated as giving the secured creditor priority over State tax dues, and the State could not displace that priority by relying on a first-charge claim under MVAT. For pre-Central-law cases, a mere attachment order was insufficient; the State had to show compliance with the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code recovery procedure, including due proclamation, which was not demonstrated here. The State also had not registered its charge with CERSAI, and the amendment-based challenge to section 37 of MVAT was rejected. The attachment and encumbrance were quashed, and the sale certificate was to be registered free of encumbrance.
Registered security interest under SARFAESI was treated as giving the secured creditor priority over State tax dues, and the State could not displace that priority by relying on a first-charge claim under MVAT. For pre-Central-law cases, a mere attachment order was insufficient; the State had to show compliance with the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code recovery procedure, including due proclamation, which was not demonstrated here. The State also had not registered its charge with CERSAI, and the amendment-based challenge to section 37 of MVAT was rejected. The attachment and encumbrance were quashed, and the sale certificate was to be registered free of encumbrance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.