Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
