Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Pre-existing dispute between parties regarding inflated invoices issued by appellant's staff/employees for different project under same Master Service Agreement. Corporate debtor entitled to rights/liabilities under Principal Agreement, so dispute over invoices covered. Appellant commenced investigation, filed police complaint after learning of inflated invoices. Correspondence shows corporate debtor disputed entitlement/payment before demand notice, indicating pre-existing dispute. Adjudicating authority rightly rejected Section 9 application due to pre-existing dispute evident from prior correspondence. No error by adjudicating authority in rejecting application. Appeal dismissed by appellate tribunal as lacking merit.
Pre-existing dispute between parties regarding inflated invoices issued by appellant's staff/employees for different project under same Master Service Agreement. Corporate debtor entitled to rights/liabilities under Principal Agreement, so dispute over invoices covered. Appellant commenced investigation, filed police complaint after learning of inflated invoices. Correspondence shows corporate debtor disputed entitlement/payment before demand notice, indicating pre-existing dispute. Adjudicating authority rightly rejected Section 9 application due to pre-existing dispute evident from prior correspondence. No error by adjudicating authority in rejecting application. Appeal dismissed by appellate tribunal as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
