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...
The petitioner is deprived of the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal u/s 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. Consequently, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of stay on recovery of the balance tax amount upon deposit as contemplated u/s 112(8) and (9). The State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification u/s 172, providing that the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal u/s 112 shall commence after the President's appointment. The petition is disposed of subject to depositing 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount, in addition to the earlier deposit u/s 107(6), entitling the petitioner to the statutory stay benefit u/s 112(9), as the non-constitution of the Tribunal cannot deprive the petitioner of this right.
The petitioner is deprived of the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal u/s 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. Consequently, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of stay on recovery of the balance tax amount upon deposit as contemplated u/s 112(8) and (9). The State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification u/s 172, providing that the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal u/s 112 shall commence after the President's appointment. The petition is disposed of subject to depositing 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount, in addition to the earlier deposit u/s 107(6), entitling the petitioner to the statutory stay benefit u/s 112(9), as the non-constitution of the Tribunal cannot deprive the petitioner of this right.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
