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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 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 upheld the impugned detention and seizure orders and dismissed the petitioner's challenge. The Court held that an officer appointed under the State GST is competent to act as the Proper Officer for purposes of IGST and CGST; absence of a separate notification under section 4 of the IGST statute did not vitiate that competence absent specific exceptions recommended by the GST Council. The Court found the consignments were accompanied by forged, bogus and fictitious documents, transactions were not reflected on the GST portal, and the petitioner failed to impeach the factual findings that it was not the owner. Consequently, the detention/seizure and attendant proceedings under section 129(1)(b) were sustained.
The HC upheld the impugned detention and seizure orders and dismissed the petitioner's challenge. The Court held that an officer appointed under the State GST is competent to act as the Proper Officer for purposes of IGST and CGST; absence of a separate notification under section 4 of the IGST statute did not vitiate that competence absent specific exceptions recommended by the GST Council. The Court found the consignments were accompanied by forged, bogus and fictitious documents, transactions were not reflected on the GST portal, and the petitioner failed to impeach the factual findings that it was not the owner. Consequently, the detention/seizure and attendant proceedings under section 129(1)(b) were sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
