Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated February 28, 2023, to the extent it pertained to three shipping bills (nos. 607682 and 607685 dated October 1, 2020, and 607467 dated October 22, 2020). The court ruled that petitioner should be permitted to rely on shipping bills now properly certified by the Superintendent of Customs, rejecting the administrative denial of unutilised input credit refund that had been based primarily on the technicality that six shipping bills were signed by the Customs Inspector rather than the Superintendent. The application was disposed of accordingly, allowing petitioner to proceed with the refund claim using the properly certified documentation.
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated February 28, 2023, to the extent it pertained to three shipping bills (nos. 607682 and 607685 dated October 1, 2020, and 607467 dated October 22, 2020). The court ruled that petitioner should be permitted to rely on shipping bills now properly certified by the Superintendent of Customs, rejecting the administrative denial of unutilised input credit refund that had been based primarily on the technicality that six shipping bills were signed by the Customs Inspector rather than the Superintendent. The application was disposed of accordingly, allowing petitioner to proceed with the refund claim using the properly certified documentation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
