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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that even if an assessee commits an error, it can be examined u/s 264 of the Act, which has a wide scope. The revision authority cannot decline consideration merely because the assessee made a mistake. The HC found the reasons given for not entertaining the application u/s 264 unjustifiable. It held that the revision authority erred in rejecting the application without considering the applicable SRO values on the dates of agreement and registration, as claimed by the assessee. The HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the revision authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
The HC held that even if an assessee commits an error, it can be examined u/s 264 of the Act, which has a wide scope. The revision authority cannot decline consideration merely because the assessee made a mistake. The HC found the reasons given for not entertaining the application u/s 264 unjustifiable. It held that the revision authority erred in rejecting the application without considering the applicable SRO values on the dates of agreement and registration, as claimed by the assessee. The HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the revision authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.