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...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 challenging a suo motu revision order by an Additional Commissioner under s.23(4)(a) of the OST Act, holding the Additional Commissioner validly exercised delegated revisionary power and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-initiate revision once such delegated power was exercised. By virtue of the non-obstante clause in s.23(4)(d) and the delegation scheme under s.3/Rule 3, any remedy lies by way of appeal to the Commissioner under s.23(4)(c)(ii). The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order dated 31 May 2025 before the Commissioner and may raise all available grounds; the writ petition was disposed.
The HC dismissed the writ challenging a suo motu revision order by an Additional Commissioner under s.23(4)(a) of the OST Act, holding the Additional Commissioner validly exercised delegated revisionary power and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-initiate revision once such delegated power was exercised. By virtue of the non-obstante clause in s.23(4)(d) and the delegation scheme under s.3/Rule 3, any remedy lies by way of appeal to the Commissioner under s.23(4)(c)(ii). The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order dated 31 May 2025 before the Commissioner and may raise all available grounds; the writ petition was disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
