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 ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the Additional Director of GST Intelligence was competent to issue the communication demanding payment, rejecting the petitioner's contention that only an Assistant Commissioner could issue such a notice. The court relied on a circular permitting Central Tax Officers of Audit Commissionerates and Directorate General of GST to issue show-cause notices. The impugned communication was not a show-cause notice but merely an intimation to pay up, failing which a show-cause notice u/s 74(1) would be issued, for which the Additional Director was competent. The court found no reason to interfere with the communication and dismissed the petition.
The High Court held that the Additional Director of GST Intelligence was competent to issue the communication demanding payment, rejecting the petitioner's contention that only an Assistant Commissioner could issue such a notice. The court relied on a circular permitting Central Tax Officers of Audit Commissionerates and Directorate General of GST to issue show-cause notices. The impugned communication was not a show-cause notice but merely an intimation to pay up, failing which a show-cause notice u/s 74(1) would be issued, for which the Additional Director was competent. The court found no reason to interfere with the communication and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.