Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
The HC upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. However, acknowledging the serious civil consequences of such cancellation, the court directed that the petitioner may apply for restoration of registration by submitting all pending returns and paying outstanding tax dues, interest, and late fees in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The empowered officer retains jurisdiction to consider the restoration application and pass appropriate orders within the statutory framework. The petitioner was granted two months to approach the concerned authority for restoration. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.
The HC upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. However, acknowledging the serious civil consequences of such cancellation, the court directed that the petitioner may apply for restoration of registration by submitting all pending returns and paying outstanding tax dues, interest, and late fees in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The empowered officer retains jurisdiction to consider the restoration application and pass appropriate orders within the statutory framework. The petitioner was granted two months to approach the concerned authority for restoration. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.