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...
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - tax paid on more than one occasion, and claims its refund u/s 154 - The High Court referred to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which states that taxes cannot be levied or collected except by authority of law. They analyzed previous court judgments and concluded that both errors of fact and errors of law can constitute 'error apparent on the face of record'. The key criterion is that the error should be clear, obvious, and not require elaborate arguments to establish. Since this error was apparent from the records, the Court concluded that it fell within the scope of Section 154.
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - tax paid on more than one occasion, and claims its refund u/s 154 - The High Court referred to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which states that taxes cannot be levied or collected except by authority of law. They analyzed previous court judgments and concluded that both errors of fact and errors of law can constitute 'error apparent on the face of record'. The key criterion is that the error should be clear, obvious, and not require elaborate arguments to establish. Since this error was apparent from the records, the Court concluded that it fell within the scope of Section 154.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.