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 validity of an order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement was questioned following the abolishment of the Settlement Commission by the Finance Act, 2021. The issue revolved around the eligibility conditions concerning the extended cut-off date for filing an application u/s 245C. A High Court decision highlighted that the CBDT's notification, imposing additional conditions for eligibility, exceeded its powers u/s 119 of the Act. Consequently, the condition in the impugned notification was deemed invalid and unlawful. The Court ruled that the petitioner was indeed eligible to make an application, rendering the rejection of their application by the Interim Board of Settlement as illegal. The petitioner's settlement application should have been considered in accordance with the law.
The validity of an order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement was questioned following the abolishment of the Settlement Commission by the Finance Act, 2021. The issue revolved around the eligibility conditions concerning the extended cut-off date for filing an application u/s 245C. A High Court decision highlighted that the CBDT's notification, imposing additional conditions for eligibility, exceeded its powers u/s 119 of the Act. Consequently, the condition in the impugned notification was deemed invalid and unlawful. The Court ruled that the petitioner was indeed eligible to make an application, rendering the rejection of their application by the Interim Board of Settlement as illegal. The petitioner's settlement application should have been considered in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
