Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, quashing the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner was unaware of the issuance of the reminder and the passing of the orders, and could not appear before the authority or question the validity of the orders within the limitation period. Following the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - Allahabad High Court], the court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as there was no material to reject the contention that the impugned order was not reflected under the "view notices and orders" tab. The court found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy.
The court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, quashing the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner was unaware of the issuance of the reminder and the passing of the orders, and could not appear before the authority or question the validity of the orders within the limitation period. Following the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - Allahabad High Court], the court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as there was no material to reject the contention that the impugned order was not reflected under the "view notices and orders" tab. The court found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
