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 set aside the order dated 08.11.2023 regarding attachment of petitioner's bank property under CGST/KGST Act, 2017, remitting the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. Despite petitioner's failure to respond to pre-intimation notice and show cause notice, the Court adopted a justice-oriented approach, accepting petitioner's claim that non-compliance stemmed from bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. The petitioner was granted one more opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notice, with the Court imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the High Court Advocate Welfare Fund. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC set aside the order dated 08.11.2023 regarding attachment of petitioner's bank property under CGST/KGST Act, 2017, remitting the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. Despite petitioner's failure to respond to pre-intimation notice and show cause notice, the Court adopted a justice-oriented approach, accepting petitioner's claim that non-compliance stemmed from bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. The petitioner was granted one more opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notice, with the Court imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the High Court Advocate Welfare Fund. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
