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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition challenging detention of goods and levy of tax and penalty under CGST Act. Court held that impugned order demonstrated due application of mind, recorded factual matrix and petitioner's reply, and provided cogent reasons for rejection. No procedural impropriety, manifest illegality, or violation of natural justice principles was established. Authorities acted within statutory powers under Section 129(3) CGST Act with reasonable appreciation of evidence. Court ruled judicial review under Article 226 does not permit reappreciation of evidence when efficacious alternative remedy exists. Petition lacked merit and dismissed, though petitioner granted liberty to pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 CGST Act 2017.
HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition challenging detention of goods and levy of tax and penalty under CGST Act. Court held that impugned order demonstrated due application of mind, recorded factual matrix and petitioner's reply, and provided cogent reasons for rejection. No procedural impropriety, manifest illegality, or violation of natural justice principles was established. Authorities acted within statutory powers under Section 129(3) CGST Act with reasonable appreciation of evidence. Court ruled judicial review under Article 226 does not permit reappreciation of evidence when efficacious alternative remedy exists. Petition lacked merit and dismissed, though petitioner granted liberty to pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 CGST Act 2017.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
