Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed a review petition regarding a fraudulent Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) claim for inward supplies. The petitioner had obtained I.T.C. based on invoices from non-existent firms. Special Investigation Branch found the firms to be bogus with no actual supply of goods. Appellate authority's decision was upheld as it considered the evidence on record. The review petition was rejected as new evidence presented could have been submitted earlier and did not refute the findings. The court found no reason to review the earlier order and dismissed the petition. The case involved Order XLVII, Rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
The High Court dismissed a review petition regarding a fraudulent Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) claim for inward supplies. The petitioner had obtained I.T.C. based on invoices from non-existent firms. Special Investigation Branch found the firms to be bogus with no actual supply of goods. Appellate authority's decision was upheld as it considered the evidence on record. The review petition was rejected as new evidence presented could have been submitted earlier and did not refute the findings. The court found no reason to review the earlier order and dismissed the petition. The case involved Order XLVII, Rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
