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 dismissed the petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
