Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an appellate order that had concurrently rejected the Appellant's appeal on both non-compliance with the pre-deposit obligation under Section 107(6) of the GST Act, 2017 and on merits. The Court distinguished earlier Bench orders that condemned dismissal solely for physical non-deposit without direction, finding the impugned order here decisively addressed substantive issues as well as the technical default. Because the merits findings were supported and no misdirection or illegality justified interference or remand, the Court concluded that setting aside the order in toto or ordering a fresh hearing was unwarranted and therefore dismissed the petition.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an appellate order that had concurrently rejected the Appellant's appeal on both non-compliance with the pre-deposit obligation under Section 107(6) of the GST Act, 2017 and on merits. The Court distinguished earlier Bench orders that condemned dismissal solely for physical non-deposit without direction, finding the impugned order here decisively addressed substantive issues as well as the technical default. Because the merits findings were supported and no misdirection or illegality justified interference or remand, the Court concluded that setting aside the order in toto or ordering a fresh hearing was unwarranted and therefore dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.