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...
HC dismissed the petition challenging registration cancellation under CGST Act. The petitioner failed to furnish final returns as mandated by Section 29(2)(c), did not respond to show cause notice, and did not avail hearing opportunity. Despite statutory provisions for revocation under Section 30 and appellate remedy under Section 107, petitioner remained inactive for over 13 months. The court held that procedural requirements were followed, and the petitioner is estopped from challenging the cancellation order due to acquiescence. The petition was consequently dismissed.
HC dismissed the petition challenging registration cancellation under CGST Act. The petitioner failed to furnish final returns as mandated by Section 29(2)(c), did not respond to show cause notice, and did not avail hearing opportunity. Despite statutory provisions for revocation under Section 30 and appellate remedy under Section 107, petitioner remained inactive for over 13 months. The court held that procedural requirements were followed, and the petitioner is estopped from challenging the cancellation order due to acquiescence. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
