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 dismissed the writ petition challenging the levy of GST on services rendered to foreign universities, holding that the petitioner's apprehension regarding prior findings by the Investigating Authority would not prejudice the Adjudicating Authority's independent adjudication under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act. The court emphasized the distinct roles of the Investigating Authority and the Quasi-Judicial Adjudicating Authority, noting that the latter must decide the show-cause notice based solely on material on record, unaffected by the former's opinions. The respondents confirmed that adjudication would be conducted by a Proper Officer of appropriate rank, with a corrigendum issued upon written request by the petitioner for adjudication by an Additional or Joint Commissioner. Consequently, no grounds for interference were found, and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the levy of GST on services rendered to foreign universities, holding that the petitioner's apprehension regarding prior findings by the Investigating Authority would not prejudice the Adjudicating Authority's independent adjudication under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act. The court emphasized the distinct roles of the Investigating Authority and the Quasi-Judicial Adjudicating Authority, noting that the latter must decide the show-cause notice based solely on material on record, unaffected by the former's opinions. The respondents confirmed that adjudication would be conducted by a Proper Officer of appropriate rank, with a corrigendum issued upon written request by the petitioner for adjudication by an Additional or Joint Commissioner. Consequently, no grounds for interference were found, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
