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...
Petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of his bank account u/s 83 of the CGST Act by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court found contradictions in the petitioner's statements regarding his permanent address and business location. Combined with the respondents' assertions of the petitioner being non-genuine, the Court concluded that the petitioner was committing fraud on both the Revenue and the Court. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of his bank account u/s 83 of the CGST Act by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court found contradictions in the petitioner's statements regarding his permanent address and business location. Combined with the respondents' assertions of the petitioner being non-genuine, the Court concluded that the petitioner was committing fraud on both the Revenue and the Court. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
