Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the challenge to the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, which confer power to arrest and prescribe punishment, holding that the contention lacked merit in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India. The SC upheld the constitutional validity of these provisions, affirming that Article 246A grants Parliament exclusive legislative competence over GST, including anti-evasion measures. Consequently, the HC found no violation of Articles 14, 20, or 21 of the Constitution and rejected the petitions contesting the legality of Sections 69 and 132. All related writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the application being dismissed.
The HC dismissed the challenge to the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, which confer power to arrest and prescribe punishment, holding that the contention lacked merit in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India. The SC upheld the constitutional validity of these provisions, affirming that Article 246A grants Parliament exclusive legislative competence over GST, including anti-evasion measures. Consequently, the HC found no violation of Articles 14, 20, or 21 of the Constitution and rejected the petitions contesting the legality of Sections 69 and 132. All related writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the application being dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
