Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Release of goods in terms of the provision of Section 129(1)(a) of the GST / UPGST Act 2017 - SCN issued to the petitioner in its capacity as the consignee - The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's status as the consignee of the goods but emphasized their position as the registered owner. It concurred that, as per Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, the goods are liable to be released in favor of the registered owner, which in this case, is the petitioner. The Court upheld the petitioner's right to obtain the release of goods.
Release of goods in terms of the provision of Section 129(1)(a) of the GST / UPGST Act 2017 - SCN issued to the petitioner in its capacity as the consignee - The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's status as the consignee of the goods but emphasized their position as the registered owner. It concurred that, as per Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, the goods are liable to be released in favor of the registered owner, which in this case, is the petitioner. The Court upheld the petitioner's right to obtain the release of goods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
