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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
HC determined that the respondent authority misconstrued the GST notification's applicability. The court held that paragraph 3(iv) of the notification applies exclusively to pre-GST contracts and cannot be used to deny reimbursement for contracts executed after July 1, 2017, which are governed by paragraph 4. The HC directed the public works department secretary to revisit the petitioner's claim regarding GST payment against gross bills from July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019, in accordance with GST law, effectively remanding the matter for reconsideration and potential reimbursement.
HC determined that the respondent authority misconstrued the GST notification's applicability. The court held that paragraph 3(iv) of the notification applies exclusively to pre-GST contracts and cannot be used to deny reimbursement for contracts executed after July 1, 2017, which are governed by paragraph 4. The HC directed the public works department secretary to revisit the petitioner's claim regarding GST payment against gross bills from July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019, in accordance with GST law, effectively remanding the matter for reconsideration and potential reimbursement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.