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...
The HC held that notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act, purportedly extending limitation periods, must be strictly construed as exceptions to Section 73. The impugned notifications lacked a valid recommendation from the GST Council based on relevant material, rendering them unsustainable. While the GST Council's recommendation is mandatory, it is not binding on the government; however, post-issuance ratification by the Council does not cure the defect of absence of prior recommendation. The Court distinguished between extension of limitation (Section 168A) and computation of limitation (Supreme Court's orders under Article 142), holding that the notifications erroneously diminished limitation periods contrary to the Supreme Court's orders, thus violating legislative intent. Consequently, the notifications were quashed, and all matters were remanded to assessing authorities for fresh adjudication consistent with these findings.
The HC held that notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act, purportedly extending limitation periods, must be strictly construed as exceptions to Section 73. The impugned notifications lacked a valid recommendation from the GST Council based on relevant material, rendering them unsustainable. While the GST Council's recommendation is mandatory, it is not binding on the government; however, post-issuance ratification by the Council does not cure the defect of absence of prior recommendation. The Court distinguished between extension of limitation (Section 168A) and computation of limitation (Supreme Court's orders under Article 142), holding that the notifications erroneously diminished limitation periods contrary to the Supreme Court's orders, thus violating legislative intent. Consequently, the notifications were quashed, and all matters were remanded to assessing authorities for fresh adjudication consistent with these findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
