Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 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 examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. Proceedings commenced on 02.03.2023 via show cause notice with final order passed on 06.12.2023. The Court determined that even with the extension of time limit, such an order could only have been passed until 31.12.2023. Since these facts were undisputed and clearly evident from the impugned order and records, the Court concluded that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred. The Court found no reason to call for a counter affidavit and allowed the petition, effectively invalidating the proceedings due to their time-barred nature.
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. Proceedings commenced on 02.03.2023 via show cause notice with final order passed on 06.12.2023. The Court determined that even with the extension of time limit, such an order could only have been passed until 31.12.2023. Since these facts were undisputed and clearly evident from the impugned order and records, the Court concluded that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred. The Court found no reason to call for a counter affidavit and allowed the petition, effectively invalidating the proceedings due to their time-barred nature.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
