Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
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...
Res judicata principle applies - Department of Expenditure (DOE) not an 'enterprise' u/s 2(h) of Competition Act, 2002 - Office Memorandum (OM) issued by DOE not an agreement u/s 3(4) and Section 3(1) of the Act. Supreme Court held DOE cannot be considered an enterprise regarding OM dated 24.03.2006. Appellant approached Respondent again with same facts, parties and prayer which was previously declined. Appellate Authority upheld earlier order, no further appeal filed. Legal maxim 'nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem causa' applies - no man should be vexed twice for same cause. Issues cannot be re-agitated as two courts already held DOE not an enterprise and OM not an agreement violating Section 3(4). Appeal dismissed.
Res judicata principle applies - Department of Expenditure (DOE) not an 'enterprise' u/s 2(h) of Competition Act, 2002 - Office Memorandum (OM) issued by DOE not an agreement u/s 3(4) and Section 3(1) of the Act. Supreme Court held DOE cannot be considered an enterprise regarding OM dated 24.03.2006. Appellant approached Respondent again with same facts, parties and prayer which was previously declined. Appellate Authority upheld earlier order, no further appeal filed. Legal maxim 'nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem causa' applies - no man should be vexed twice for same cause. Issues cannot be re-agitated as two courts already held DOE not an enterprise and OM not an agreement violating Section 3(4). Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
