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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 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 allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' explanation for a 93-day delay in filing the statutory appeal - namely incapacitation of their consultant supported by a psychiatrist's certificate - was reasonable, plausible and not indicative of gross negligence or deliberate laches. The court condoned the delay, set aside the impugned appellate order dated March 29, 2025, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with directions limited to restoration of the appeal for fresh hearing before the appropriate appellate forum.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' explanation for a 93-day delay in filing the statutory appeal - namely incapacitation of their consultant supported by a psychiatrist's certificate - was reasonable, plausible and not indicative of gross negligence or deliberate laches. The court condoned the delay, set aside the impugned appellate order dated March 29, 2025, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with directions limited to restoration of the appeal for fresh hearing before the appropriate appellate forum.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.