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 seeking recall of bail in a fraudulent IGST refund case. The respondent, arrested for allegedly claiming fraudulent tax refund exceeding 63 crores, was granted bail by the MM after careful consideration of facts. The court found no justification to interfere with the bail order, noting that previous prosecutions were primarily for non-appearance under IPC Sections 174, 175, and no formal complaint had been filed. The ASJ had already evaluated the respondent's prior involvement, and the Department failed to demonstrate any improper exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the petition challenging the bail order was rejected.
HC dismissed the petition seeking recall of bail in a fraudulent IGST refund case. The respondent, arrested for allegedly claiming fraudulent tax refund exceeding 63 crores, was granted bail by the MM after careful consideration of facts. The court found no justification to interfere with the bail order, noting that previous prosecutions were primarily for non-appearance under IPC Sections 174, 175, and no formal complaint had been filed. The ASJ had already evaluated the respondent's prior involvement, and the Department failed to demonstrate any improper exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the petition challenging the bail order was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
