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...
Jurisdiction over a GST waiver application arising from a combined demand order was not defeated merely because part of the operations concerned another State. Sections 79 and 128A refer to the relevant proper officer, but neither the recovery provision nor the GST Rules prescribe a basis for identifying that officer in this situation. Rule 164 contemplates a single waiver application in Form GST SPL-01 or GST SPL-02 rather than multiple applications. Where one officer issued a combined demand order covering Chennai and Maharashtra operations, no statutory basis existed to refuse jurisdiction over the Maharashtra waiver claim. The rejection of that limited claim was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity.
Jurisdiction over a GST waiver application arising from a combined demand order was not defeated merely because part of the operations concerned another State. Sections 79 and 128A refer to the relevant proper officer, but neither the recovery provision nor the GST Rules prescribe a basis for identifying that officer in this situation. Rule 164 contemplates a single waiver application in Form GST SPL-01 or GST SPL-02 rather than multiple applications. Where one officer issued a combined demand order covering Chennai and Maharashtra operations, no statutory basis existed to refuse jurisdiction over the Maharashtra waiver claim. The rejection of that limited claim was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
