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...
The High Court examined a challenge against a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, questioning its validity u/s 168(A) of the CGST Act, 2017 due to lack of GST Council recommendation. The court found the notification prima facie inconsistent with the law, indicating potential failure of actions based on it. An assessment of force majeure applicability in light of GST Council meeting minutes was deemed necessary, with authorities given a chance to present their stance and evidence. Pending further notice, petitioners were granted interim protection against coercive measures based on the contested assessment order. Respondents were instructed to submit affidavits by a specified date for further proceedings.
The High Court examined a challenge against a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, questioning its validity u/s 168(A) of the CGST Act, 2017 due to lack of GST Council recommendation. The court found the notification prima facie inconsistent with the law, indicating potential failure of actions based on it. An assessment of force majeure applicability in light of GST Council meeting minutes was deemed necessary, with authorities given a chance to present their stance and evidence. Pending further notice, petitioners were granted interim protection against coercive measures based on the contested assessment order. Respondents were instructed to submit affidavits by a specified date for further proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.