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...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 95999 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 dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability, holding that petitioners cannot bypass the alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication orders. The Court declined to adjudicate on whether the show-cause notices disclosed fraud, willful misstatement or suppression, noting the notices were issued within the three-year period under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act and therefore remain competent even if an incorrect section (Section 74) was quoted. The Court held mere misquotation does not render a notice without jurisdiction if it can be sustained under the correct provision. Petition dismissed; petitioners left at liberty to prosecute the appeals already instituted against the impugned adjudication orders.
The HC dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability, holding that petitioners cannot bypass the alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication orders. The Court declined to adjudicate on whether the show-cause notices disclosed fraud, willful misstatement or suppression, noting the notices were issued within the three-year period under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act and therefore remain competent even if an incorrect section (Section 74) was quoted. The Court held mere misquotation does not render a notice without jurisdiction if it can be sustained under the correct provision. Petition dismissed; petitioners left at liberty to prosecute the appeals already instituted against the impugned adjudication orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
