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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 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 dealt with a case involving the rejection of a refund claim due to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B return. The Court found that no reasons were given for determining that the claim did not meet the requirements of u/s 77. Additionally, the Court noted that although it was concluded that there was no excess payment, the petitioner's detailed response on this issue was not considered, and proper reasons were not provided for this conclusion. As a result, the Court disposed of the petition by remanding the matter for further consideration.
The High Court dealt with a case involving the rejection of a refund claim due to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B return. The Court found that no reasons were given for determining that the claim did not meet the requirements of u/s 77. Additionally, the Court noted that although it was concluded that there was no excess payment, the petitioner's detailed response on this issue was not considered, and proper reasons were not provided for this conclusion. As a result, the Court disposed of the petition by remanding the matter for further consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
