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...
Uploading GST notices or orders solely in the Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab was not authorised service because the notified portal functions and Rules did not prescribe that tab as a statutory mode of service. Such uploading could not commence the appeal limitation period, particularly where the interface did not prominently disclose communications. E-mail service required transmission of the notice or order itself to the registered e-mail address; an intimation alone was insufficient. Ex parte proceedings based solely on invalid portal service were restored for reply and hearing, while affected appeals could be considered on merits. However, an assessee that replied to and contested a show-cause notice could not later challenge the resulting order solely for defective portal service.
Uploading GST notices or orders solely in the Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab was not authorised service because the notified portal functions and Rules did not prescribe that tab as a statutory mode of service. Such uploading could not commence the appeal limitation period, particularly where the interface did not prominently disclose communications. E-mail service required transmission of the notice or order itself to the registered e-mail address; an intimation alone was insufficient. Ex parte proceedings based solely on invalid portal service were restored for reply and hearing, while affected appeals could be considered on merits. However, an assessee that replied to and contested a show-cause notice could not later challenge the resulting order solely for defective portal service.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.