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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging levy of penalties under section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, upholding the proper officer's decision based on his reasonable belief that the consignor's documents did not substantiate legitimacy of the goods in transit. The court accepted evidentiary inconsistencies, including the driver's statement regarding loading time and place and absence of payment particulars, and declined to resolve ownership genuineness on writ jurisdiction. The petitioner remains entitled to seek immediate release of goods under section 129(1)(b) by application to the proper officer (to be decided within two working days) and to pursue available appellate remedies.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging levy of penalties under section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, upholding the proper officer's decision based on his reasonable belief that the consignor's documents did not substantiate legitimacy of the goods in transit. The court accepted evidentiary inconsistencies, including the driver's statement regarding loading time and place and absence of payment particulars, and declined to resolve ownership genuineness on writ jurisdiction. The petitioner remains entitled to seek immediate release of goods under section 129(1)(b) by application to the proper officer (to be decided within two working days) and to pursue available appellate remedies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
