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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessment order was prima facie passed within the period of limitation on 30.09.2021, as evidenced by the presumption of validity and the email and physical dispatch to the petitioner. However, the petitioner's explanation dated 29.09.2021 was not considered, and the assessment appeared to be completed hurriedly to avoid limitation. To balance the interests, the High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and remitted the case to the respondents to pass orders on merits within six months, without finding fault on either party regarding the limitation issue.
The assessment order was prima facie passed within the period of limitation on 30.09.2021, as evidenced by the presumption of validity and the email and physical dispatch to the petitioner. However, the petitioner's explanation dated 29.09.2021 was not considered, and the assessment appeared to be completed hurriedly to avoid limitation. To balance the interests, the High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and remitted the case to the respondents to pass orders on merits within six months, without finding fault on either party regarding the limitation issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.