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...
HC allowed the writ petition in part, finding that the notice issued under Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 did not comply with statutory requirements for providing thirty days' response time. The court set aside the impugned actions dated 30.11.2023 and remanded the matter to the authority to issue a corrigendum to the 29.09.2023 notice, extending the reply and hearing timelines in strict accordance with Section 73(8). The authority must complete this exercise within three months from the order date, with remaining contentions left open for future adjudication.
HC allowed the writ petition in part, finding that the notice issued under Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 did not comply with statutory requirements for providing thirty days' response time. The court set aside the impugned actions dated 30.11.2023 and remanded the matter to the authority to issue a corrigendum to the 29.09.2023 notice, extending the reply and hearing timelines in strict accordance with Section 73(8). The authority must complete this exercise within three months from the order date, with remaining contentions left open for future adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.