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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
