Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
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...
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 18 March 2025, holding that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for using ITC to make the 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act without issuing any notice or affording the petitioner a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the jurisdictional HC had previously ruled that ITC utilization for pre-deposit is permissible, and the Appellate Authority should have notified the petitioner before non-suiting them. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority improperly disregarded binding jurisdictional precedent and the Supreme Court's stay on contrary observations from another HC. Consequently, the petitioner's appeal was restored for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 18 March 2025, holding that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for using ITC to make the 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act without issuing any notice or affording the petitioner a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the jurisdictional HC had previously ruled that ITC utilization for pre-deposit is permissible, and the Appellate Authority should have notified the petitioner before non-suiting them. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority improperly disregarded binding jurisdictional precedent and the Supreme Court's stay on contrary observations from another HC. Consequently, the petitioner's appeal was restored for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
