Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
