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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Classification dispute over imported goods - whether categorized as freely importable silver jewelry or restricted under ITC (HS) Code 71069210. Apex court reiterated writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary, requiring petitioner to approach court with clean hands, candid disclosure without concealment. Petitioner made false averments about being a registered partnership firm, misleading the court. Held that petitioner abused legal process, not entitled to extraordinary relief. Petition dismissed for lack of candor and suppression of facts.
Classification dispute over imported goods - whether categorized as freely importable silver jewelry or restricted under ITC (HS) Code 71069210. Apex court reiterated writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary, requiring petitioner to approach court with clean hands, candid disclosure without concealment. Petitioner made false averments about being a registered partnership firm, misleading the court. Held that petitioner abused legal process, not entitled to extraordinary relief. Petition dismissed for lack of candor and suppression of facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.