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...
The High Court considered a challenge to letters issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to the Petitioner's failure to make payment as per the SVLDRS-3 form. The Court found that the Petitioner's inability to make payment was due to a technical glitch, which was raised with the Respondents. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay, and as no fault was attributed to them, they should not be denied the SVLDRS benefit. The Court referenced a previous decision where a similar situation allowed the declarant to make payment and benefit from the SVLDR scheme. The application was disposed of in favor of the Petitioner.
The High Court considered a challenge to letters issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to the Petitioner's failure to make payment as per the SVLDRS-3 form. The Court found that the Petitioner's inability to make payment was due to a technical glitch, which was raised with the Respondents. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay, and as no fault was attributed to them, they should not be denied the SVLDRS benefit. The Court referenced a previous decision where a similar situation allowed the declarant to make payment and benefit from the SVLDR scheme. The application was disposed of in favor of the Petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
