Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the appeal as time-barred by 23 days and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication within a reasonable time. The court found the appellate authority erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach where the appellant, owing to bona fide confusion and portal/upload irregularities (including non-upload of the order summary and issuance of appeal number on physical filing), could not be deemed to have wilfully delayed filing; medical infirmity of the appellant was noted. The HC directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal in accordance with Rule 108(3) provisos and applicable law and to decide afresh.
The HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the appeal as time-barred by 23 days and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication within a reasonable time. The court found the appellate authority erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach where the appellant, owing to bona fide confusion and portal/upload irregularities (including non-upload of the order summary and issuance of appeal number on physical filing), could not be deemed to have wilfully delayed filing; medical infirmity of the appellant was noted. The HC directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal in accordance with Rule 108(3) provisos and applicable law and to decide afresh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
