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 writ petition challenging imposition of penalty under s.122 CGST, finding fraudulent availment of input tax credit through creation and operation of non-existent bogus firms by the petitioner and associates. The court held that matters involving complex transactions and voluminous evidence arising from investigatory findings are ordinarily unsuitable for writ relief and are more appropriately addressed through statutory appellate remedies; the impugned order is appealable under s.107 CGST. The HC further upheld the validity of Circular No.254/11/2025 appointing the proper officer, observing the Additional Commissioner was empowered to issue the show cause notice under s.122. Writ relief was refused and the petition dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging imposition of penalty under s.122 CGST, finding fraudulent availment of input tax credit through creation and operation of non-existent bogus firms by the petitioner and associates. The court held that matters involving complex transactions and voluminous evidence arising from investigatory findings are ordinarily unsuitable for writ relief and are more appropriately addressed through statutory appellate remedies; the impugned order is appealable under s.107 CGST. The HC further upheld the validity of Circular No.254/11/2025 appointing the proper officer, observing the Additional Commissioner was empowered to issue the show cause notice under s.122. Writ relief was refused and the petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
