Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
The High Court addressed the issue of cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and the rejection of an appeal on the ground of time limitation. The respondent claimed that the statute prescribes a specific limitation period of 90 days to file an appeal, and the petitioner's appeal was time-barred. The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime, as they would continue their businesses and supply goods and services. The Court acknowledged that most small-scale entrepreneurs are uneducated and unaccustomed to handling emails and advanced technologies, despite providing email IDs during registration. The Court emphasized that the object of any government should be to promote trade, not curtail it. The method adopted by the department is likened to strangulating the neck of small-scale entrepreneurs, as cancellation of registration amounts to capital punishment for traders. The Court expects the GST department to amend relevant provisions, considering the consequences on traders, and to find modalities for conveying show cause notices via SMS and regional languages.
The High Court addressed the issue of cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and the rejection of an appeal on the ground of time limitation. The respondent claimed that the statute prescribes a specific limitation period of 90 days to file an appeal, and the petitioner's appeal was time-barred. The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime, as they would continue their businesses and supply goods and services. The Court acknowledged that most small-scale entrepreneurs are uneducated and unaccustomed to handling emails and advanced technologies, despite providing email IDs during registration. The Court emphasized that the object of any government should be to promote trade, not curtail it. The method adopted by the department is likened to strangulating the neck of small-scale entrepreneurs, as cancellation of registration amounts to capital punishment for traders. The Court expects the GST department to amend relevant provisions, considering the consequences on traders, and to find modalities for conveying show cause notices via SMS and regional languages.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
