Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96001 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 held that the petition is not maintainable insofar as the petitioner failed to show that the officer exercising Section 129(3) of the CGST Act lacked jurisdiction or that "specifying the penalty payable" requires assessment of goods and valuation prior to its specification; prima facie the petitioner did not cooperate in proceedings under Section 129. The writ petition is disposed of with the petitioner directed to exhaust the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority within one month of receipt of the order. The appellate authority is requested to decide the memorandum of appeal within a reasonable period, namely three months from receipt. No stay was granted.
The HC held that the petition is not maintainable insofar as the petitioner failed to show that the officer exercising Section 129(3) of the CGST Act lacked jurisdiction or that "specifying the penalty payable" requires assessment of goods and valuation prior to its specification; prima facie the petitioner did not cooperate in proceedings under Section 129. The writ petition is disposed of with the petitioner directed to exhaust the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority within one month of receipt of the order. The appellate authority is requested to decide the memorandum of appeal within a reasonable period, namely three months from receipt. No stay was granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.