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...
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...
The HC held that the procedure under Section 144C(1) is mandatory, requiring the assessing officer to send a draft of the proposed assessment order to the petitioner when a prejudicial variation is proposed. The AO's failure to comply was a fatal jurisdictional error. The Court rejected the AO's reliance on Circular No.5/2010, which incorrectly interpreted Section 144C(1), affirming that the Board has no authority to contravene statutory provisions. The petitioner's writ petitions were allowed, as remitting the matter for fresh assessment was impermissible due to the expiration of the limitation period under Section 153. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed, and no further proceedings could be initiated.
The HC held that the procedure under Section 144C(1) is mandatory, requiring the assessing officer to send a draft of the proposed assessment order to the petitioner when a prejudicial variation is proposed. The AO's failure to comply was a fatal jurisdictional error. The Court rejected the AO's reliance on Circular No.5/2010, which incorrectly interpreted Section 144C(1), affirming that the Board has no authority to contravene statutory provisions. The petitioner's writ petitions were allowed, as remitting the matter for fresh assessment was impermissible due to the expiration of the limitation period under Section 153. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed, and no further proceedings could be initiated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
