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 partly allowed the challenge to the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order for violating principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. It remitted the case to the respondents to pass a fresh order, subject to conditions: the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax of Rs. 31,56,386/- within six weeks, and file a detailed reply to the quashed Assessment Order, treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.02.2021, within thirty days. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court partly allowed the challenge to the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order for violating principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. It remitted the case to the respondents to pass a fresh order, subject to conditions: the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax of Rs. 31,56,386/- within six weeks, and file a detailed reply to the quashed Assessment Order, treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.02.2021, within thirty days. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.