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 dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The court found no merit in the claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice, as the petitioner had responded to it, citing internal communication issues. The impugned order was issued after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in compliance with the proviso to Section 29(2) of the CGST/BGST Act. The petitioner failed to file pending returns and pay admitted tax before the order dated 03.07.2020, which constituted a valid ground for cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). The court distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in this case, reasons were duly provided and the petitioner was not denied a hearing. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the cancellation order and dismissed the petitioner's challenge.
The HC dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The court found no merit in the claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice, as the petitioner had responded to it, citing internal communication issues. The impugned order was issued after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in compliance with the proviso to Section 29(2) of the CGST/BGST Act. The petitioner failed to file pending returns and pay admitted tax before the order dated 03.07.2020, which constituted a valid ground for cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). The court distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in this case, reasons were duly provided and the petitioner was not denied a hearing. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the cancellation order and dismissed the petitioner's challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
