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 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Availment of wrongful credit - bonafide mistake - The High Court observed that the mistake made by the appellants was inadvertent, and despite the acknowledgment of the error by the adjudicating authority, the demand was confirmed without providing any guidance or assistance to rectify the error. Considering previous legal precedents and the transitional phase of legislation, the court directed the authorities to enable the appellants to rectify the mistake and submit the correct form within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the Nodal Officer of IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism was directed to facilitate the filing process and provide options for manual rectification if necessary.
Availment of wrongful credit - bonafide mistake - The High Court observed that the mistake made by the appellants was inadvertent, and despite the acknowledgment of the error by the adjudicating authority, the demand was confirmed without providing any guidance or assistance to rectify the error. Considering previous legal precedents and the transitional phase of legislation, the court directed the authorities to enable the appellants to rectify the mistake and submit the correct form within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the Nodal Officer of IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism was directed to facilitate the filing process and provide options for manual rectification if necessary.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.