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" ?
Seeking review of order - error apparent on the face of record or not - The court acknowledged the existence of the amendment to Paragraph 9.3 of the Handbook of Procedures and recognized its relevance to the case. However, it concluded that the amendment had been duly considered in the earlier order, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding its application. In line with the respondents' argument, the court emphasized that a review cannot be used as a disguised appeal. It cited a Supreme Court decision that cautioned against exceeding jurisdiction in review applications and reiterated the principle that a review cannot reevaluate evidence already considered in the main petition.
Seeking review of order - error apparent on the face of record or not - The court acknowledged the existence of the amendment to Paragraph 9.3 of the Handbook of Procedures and recognized its relevance to the case. However, it concluded that the amendment had been duly considered in the earlier order, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding its application. In line with the respondents' argument, the court emphasized that a review cannot be used as a disguised appeal. It cited a Supreme Court decision that cautioned against exceeding jurisdiction in review applications and reiterated the principle that a review cannot reevaluate evidence already considered in the main petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
