Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC allowed the petition and quashed the show-cause notice dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Central Proper Officer and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2025. The court held that, by virtue of Section 6(1) and the bar in Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, the Central Proper Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 after the State Proper Officer had earlier commenced intelligence-based enforcement; summons under Section 70 did not amount to initiation of rival "proceedings." Consequently, the Central-originated proceedings are non est ab initio and the resultant order cannot be sustained. Petition allowed.
HC allowed the petition and quashed the show-cause notice dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Central Proper Officer and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2025. The court held that, by virtue of Section 6(1) and the bar in Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, the Central Proper Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 after the State Proper Officer had earlier commenced intelligence-based enforcement; summons under Section 70 did not amount to initiation of rival "proceedings." Consequently, the Central-originated proceedings are non est ab initio and the resultant order cannot be sustained. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
