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...
Alternative statutory remedy does not make a writ petition non-maintainable, but its entertainment remains discretionary. The statutory bar on parallel CGST proceedings applies only where State GST proceedings on the same subject matter were initiated earlier. Where the CGST show-cause notice preceded SGST notices, no jurisdictional defect arose under the bar. An earlier order concerning seized goods was distinct from later adjudication following investigation, notice under Section 74 and consideration of the taxpayer's reply, and therefore did not constitute parallel adjudication. In the absence of a jurisdictional infirmity, the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appeal, with writ-prosecution time excluded for limitation.
Alternative statutory remedy does not make a writ petition non-maintainable, but its entertainment remains discretionary. The statutory bar on parallel CGST proceedings applies only where State GST proceedings on the same subject matter were initiated earlier. Where the CGST show-cause notice preceded SGST notices, no jurisdictional defect arose under the bar. An earlier order concerning seized goods was distinct from later adjudication following investigation, notice under Section 74 and consideration of the taxpayer's reply, and therefore did not constitute parallel adjudication. In the absence of a jurisdictional infirmity, the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appeal, with writ-prosecution time excluded for limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
