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 stayed a common final order issued during pending litigation, finding prima facie merit in petitioners' challenges. The court determined that the original show cause notice under CGST Act s.74 was issued without jurisdiction for failing to comply with mandatory provisions of Rule 142 of CGST Rules. Applying the maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus," the court held that when the foundation of proceedings is defective, all subsequent actions and orders automatically fail. Additionally, the denial of petitioners' right to cross-examine witnesses whose testimony was relied upon by respondents constituted a violation of natural justice principles. The court admitted the petitions for final hearing and stayed the operation of the impugned order to prevent irreparable harm to petitioners.
The HC stayed a common final order issued during pending litigation, finding prima facie merit in petitioners' challenges. The court determined that the original show cause notice under CGST Act s.74 was issued without jurisdiction for failing to comply with mandatory provisions of Rule 142 of CGST Rules. Applying the maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus," the court held that when the foundation of proceedings is defective, all subsequent actions and orders automatically fail. Additionally, the denial of petitioners' right to cross-examine witnesses whose testimony was relied upon by respondents constituted a violation of natural justice principles. The court admitted the petitions for final hearing and stayed the operation of the impugned order to prevent irreparable harm to petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.