Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC entertained a writ under Article 226, holding territorial jurisdiction proper and the challenge not premature in light of recent statutory amendments permitting appeals against determinations. The petition was heard despite the statutory appellate forum because CESTAT was non-functional, rendering the alternative remedy illusory. On merits the HC found procedural irregularity and breach of natural justice: the designated authority accepted confidentiality claims without requiring non-confidential summaries or adequate reasons, thereby denying opportunity to contest reliance on confidential material in violation of Rule 7(2). The HC quashed the final findings and the duty levy and remanded the matter to the designated authority for fresh consideration from the petitioner's response stage; any duties collected remain subject to the ultimate outcome.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
