Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dismissal of an appeal by the appellate authority due to procedural defects, including the failure to submit a Board Resolution appointing the authorized signatory, the non-mentioning of the signatory's name, delay in filing the appeal, and incorrect mode of pre-deposit payment. The High Court held that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify these defects, which are minor procedural lapses. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized that justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with procedures without allowing the appellant to rectify the defects. The court also addressed the issue of pre-deposit payment through DRC-03, citing a previous case where the High Court directed the concerned authority to issue clarification on this industry-wide issue. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication by the appellate authority.
Dismissal of an appeal by the appellate authority due to procedural defects, including the failure to submit a Board Resolution appointing the authorized signatory, the non-mentioning of the signatory's name, delay in filing the appeal, and incorrect mode of pre-deposit payment. The High Court held that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify these defects, which are minor procedural lapses. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized that justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with procedures without allowing the appellant to rectify the defects. The court also addressed the issue of pre-deposit payment through DRC-03, citing a previous case where the High Court directed the concerned authority to issue clarification on this industry-wide issue. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication by the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
