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 dismissed the petition challenging action under s.129(3) CGST Act, upholding detention and seizure of goods sent for job work. The court found that at interception there was no requisite delivery challan accompanying the consignment and documentary proof was lacking, although an e-way bill was produced prior to the seizure order. Applying its prior authority, the HC concluded the enforcement action was not illegal or arbitrary where statutory documentation was absent at the time of movement. Consequently the impugned orders were affirmed and no interference was warranted with the revenue authorities' proceedings; the petition is dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging action under s.129(3) CGST Act, upholding detention and seizure of goods sent for job work. The court found that at interception there was no requisite delivery challan accompanying the consignment and documentary proof was lacking, although an e-way bill was produced prior to the seizure order. Applying its prior authority, the HC concluded the enforcement action was not illegal or arbitrary where statutory documentation was absent at the time of movement. Consequently the impugned orders were affirmed and no interference was warranted with the revenue authorities' proceedings; the petition is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
