Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
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...
HC dismissed the writ challenge and disposed of the petition, holding that writ jurisdiction is inappropriate where multiple impugned adjudication orders involve numerous noticees and differing factual matrices requiring detailed factual inquiry. The HC held that the proper officer cannot be fixed based solely on the Petitioner's position and that the Petitioner's contentions may be ventilated in statutory appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner was granted leave to file six separate appeals against the impugned orders, subject to a pre-deposit requirement limited to the order dated 28 January 2025 (total demand Rs. 15,90,84,564; tax Rs. 7,95,42,282). Appeals and pre-deposit to be filed by 30 September 2025.
HC dismissed the writ challenge and disposed of the petition, holding that writ jurisdiction is inappropriate where multiple impugned adjudication orders involve numerous noticees and differing factual matrices requiring detailed factual inquiry. The HC held that the proper officer cannot be fixed based solely on the Petitioner's position and that the Petitioner's contentions may be ventilated in statutory appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner was granted leave to file six separate appeals against the impugned orders, subject to a pre-deposit requirement limited to the order dated 28 January 2025 (total demand Rs. 15,90,84,564; tax Rs. 7,95,42,282). Appeals and pre-deposit to be filed by 30 September 2025.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
