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 appellant sought stay of the impugned order citing violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination of witnesses in quasi-judicial proceedings related to mis-declaration of quantity and value of goods. The Tribunal held that the appellant repeatedly delayed filing a reply to the show-cause notice and sought cross-examination on flimsy grounds without specifying valid reasons. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that cross-examination was unwarranted as the officers merely prepared documents based on evidence retrieved, and the appellant failed to contest the statements with specific reasons. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
The appellant sought stay of the impugned order citing violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination of witnesses in quasi-judicial proceedings related to mis-declaration of quantity and value of goods. The Tribunal held that the appellant repeatedly delayed filing a reply to the show-cause notice and sought cross-examination on flimsy grounds without specifying valid reasons. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that cross-examination was unwarranted as the officers merely prepared documents based on evidence retrieved, and the appellant failed to contest the statements with specific reasons. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.