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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the impugned proceedings under s.73(9) were vitiated by defective communication of the show-cause notice and by the Proper Officer's failure to afford the statutory hearing mandated by s.75(4); uploading the notice only under an "additional" tab did not constitute valid service under the WBGST/CGST regime, and the petitioner was shown to have had sufficient cause for non-reply. The court declined to sustain any time-bar refusal and granted the petitioner a final opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice, directing fresh adjudication after affording the requisite opportunity of hearing; the petition was disposed accordingly.
The HC held that the impugned proceedings under s.73(9) were vitiated by defective communication of the show-cause notice and by the Proper Officer's failure to afford the statutory hearing mandated by s.75(4); uploading the notice only under an "additional" tab did not constitute valid service under the WBGST/CGST regime, and the petitioner was shown to have had sufficient cause for non-reply. The court declined to sustain any time-bar refusal and granted the petitioner a final opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice, directing fresh adjudication after affording the requisite opportunity of hearing; the petition was disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.