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 disposed of writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) for non-furnishing returns for six months. Court found violation of natural justice principles as no personal hearing date was notified to petitioner. HC directed petitioner to approach concerned authority within two months seeking restoration by filing pending returns and paying tax dues with interest and late fees. Court held that if petitioner complies with proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules 2017, authority must consider restoration application expeditiously in accordance with law, given serious civil consequences of registration cancellation.
HC disposed of writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) for non-furnishing returns for six months. Court found violation of natural justice principles as no personal hearing date was notified to petitioner. HC directed petitioner to approach concerned authority within two months seeking restoration by filing pending returns and paying tax dues with interest and late fees. Court held that if petitioner complies with proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules 2017, authority must consider restoration application expeditiously in accordance with law, given serious civil consequences of registration cancellation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.