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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 122(1A) of the CGST Act must be imposed consistently with the person identified in the show-cause notice. Specified penalties were proposed against the petitioner, while the separate section 122(1A) penalty was proposed against its handler/operator; nevertheless, both penalties were imposed on the petitioner. As this mixing of proposed penalties was not specifically controverted, the penalty order was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner, with other issues left open.
Penalty under section 122(1A) of the CGST Act must be imposed consistently with the person identified in the show-cause notice. Specified penalties were proposed against the petitioner, while the separate section 122(1A) penalty was proposed against its handler/operator; nevertheless, both penalties were imposed on the petitioner. As this mixing of proposed penalties was not specifically controverted, the penalty order was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner, with other issues left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.