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...
The petitioner failed to challenge the matter within statutory provisions and raised the constitutional validity of Section 29(2) under CGST and BGST Acts. The court found the decision in Rohit Enterprises persuasive but not binding. While the facts differed, the hardship was similar to a previous case where the constitutional guarantee to carry out trade and commerce was upheld. No valid ground was raised against the delay in filing an appeal, as Section 30 allows revocation of cancellation within 30 days. The court found no reason to exercise discretionary power or entertain the writ petition testing Section 29(2)'s constitutional validity, as the orders were within statutory boundaries. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioner failed to challenge the matter within statutory provisions and raised the constitutional validity of Section 29(2) under CGST and BGST Acts. The court found the decision in Rohit Enterprises persuasive but not binding. While the facts differed, the hardship was similar to a previous case where the constitutional guarantee to carry out trade and commerce was upheld. No valid ground was raised against the delay in filing an appeal, as Section 30 allows revocation of cancellation within 30 days. The court found no reason to exercise discretionary power or entertain the writ petition testing Section 29(2)'s constitutional validity, as the orders were within statutory boundaries. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.