Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The High Court held that the rejection letter issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) scrip is appealable u/s 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The authority processing the application u/s 9 would be treated as an adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of Section 15, even if not formally designated as such. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection letter was maintainable. The High Court quashed the orders rejecting the appeal as non-admissible and the rejection letter, and remanded the matter to the JDGFT for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a speaking order.
The High Court held that the rejection letter issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) scrip is appealable u/s 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The authority processing the application u/s 9 would be treated as an adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of Section 15, even if not formally designated as such. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection letter was maintainable. The High Court quashed the orders rejecting the appeal as non-admissible and the rejection letter, and remanded the matter to the JDGFT for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a speaking order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
