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 held that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside for noncompliance with Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) and for violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4). The court found that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice; a distinct SCN and, where issued, a Statement under Section 73(3) are mandatory, and Section 73(2)'s timing requirements must be observed. Because the Proper Officer proceeded without affording an effective hearing, the adverse order was invalid. The petition is allowed; respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73 if deemed appropriate.
The HC held that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside for noncompliance with Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) and for violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4). The court found that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice; a distinct SCN and, where issued, a Statement under Section 73(3) are mandatory, and Section 73(2)'s timing requirements must be observed. Because the Proper Officer proceeded without affording an effective hearing, the adverse order was invalid. The petition is allowed; respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73 if deemed appropriate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.