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...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of demand of GST raised by State authorities - For the same cause of action, the Central Authority has already initiated action - The petitioner contested the order on the grounds of prior proceedings initiated by the Central Authority and alleged lack of timely information provided to the State authorities. The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the invalidity of the Demand Order due to prior proceedings and dismissed the State authorities' claims of lack of information. Additionally, the Court rejected reliance on a circular mandate as sufficient justification for the State authorities' actions. Consequently, the High Court set aside/quashed the impugned Demand Order.
Validity of demand of GST raised by State authorities - For the same cause of action, the Central Authority has already initiated action - The petitioner contested the order on the grounds of prior proceedings initiated by the Central Authority and alleged lack of timely information provided to the State authorities. The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the invalidity of the Demand Order due to prior proceedings and dismissed the State authorities' claims of lack of information. Additionally, the Court rejected reliance on a circular mandate as sufficient justification for the State authorities' actions. Consequently, the High Court set aside/quashed the impugned Demand Order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
