Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled on the revocation of a Customs Broker License and forfeiture of security deposit. The case involved risky exporters engaged in frauds, with exporters not physically present at registered premises. The appellant, as the Customs Broker, was found not in violation of Regulation 10(d) as it had no authority over GST registration issues. The appellant's responsibility under Regulation 10(n) was to verify documents, not physically verify exporter existence. The appellant satisfied obligations by verifying IEC and GSTIN online. The order revoking the license was set aside as the Customs Broker did not violate regulations. Appeal allowed.
CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled on the revocation of a Customs Broker License and forfeiture of security deposit. The case involved risky exporters engaged in frauds, with exporters not physically present at registered premises. The appellant, as the Customs Broker, was found not in violation of Regulation 10(d) as it had no authority over GST registration issues. The appellant's responsibility under Regulation 10(n) was to verify documents, not physically verify exporter existence. The appellant satisfied obligations by verifying IEC and GSTIN online. The order revoking the license was set aside as the Customs Broker did not violate regulations. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
