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...
Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving or sunset clause ended its refund restriction for pending proceedings concerning integrated tax paid on exports. Proceedings under an omitted rule can continue only where a saving provision or statutory legal fiction preserves them. The GST Council's advisory recommendation for prospective omission did not bind the rule-making authority. The Supreme Court treated the omission as applicable to all pending refund proceedings, dismissed challenges to that application, and dismissed challenges to the rule's validity as infructuous.
Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving or sunset clause ended its refund restriction for pending proceedings concerning integrated tax paid on exports. Proceedings under an omitted rule can continue only where a saving provision or statutory legal fiction preserves them. The GST Council's advisory recommendation for prospective omission did not bind the rule-making authority. The Supreme Court treated the omission as applicable to all pending refund proceedings, dismissed challenges to that application, and dismissed challenges to the rule's validity as infructuous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.