Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC dismissed the appeals and disposed of the proceedings in accordance with the Board circular, remitting the matter for recalculation of penalty and refund insofar as a penalty was levied on the entire consignment. The Court held that the impugned order did not fall within the specific category under Clause (iv) of Paragraph 4 of the Circular because the directive concerned recomputation of penalty for a discrete transaction and did not directly require refund or construction of statutory provisions nor did it raise a recurring question of law. Consequently, the appeals were declined and the matter was remanded for reassessment and appropriate refund consistent with the Circular.
The SC dismissed the appeals and disposed of the proceedings in accordance with the Board circular, remitting the matter for recalculation of penalty and refund insofar as a penalty was levied on the entire consignment. The Court held that the impugned order did not fall within the specific category under Clause (iv) of Paragraph 4 of the Circular because the directive concerned recomputation of penalty for a discrete transaction and did not directly require refund or construction of statutory provisions nor did it raise a recurring question of law. Consequently, the appeals were declined and the matter was remanded for reassessment and appropriate refund consistent with the Circular.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.