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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 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 quashed the Audit Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025 and the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued in Form VAT-306 as void for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court held the AVR was invalid because Section 41(4)'s mandatory time-limit was not complied with; consequently the Assessing Authority could not lawfully invoke Section 42 after having earlier proceeded under Section 43. Section 49(2) cannot be used to cure an intra-statutory jurisdictional error where the authority erroneously chose Section 43 over Section 42. All proceedings and consequential acts founded on the invalid AVR and the delayed Form VAT-306 notice therefore collapsed and the petition was allowed.
The HC quashed the Audit Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025 and the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued in Form VAT-306 as void for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court held the AVR was invalid because Section 41(4)'s mandatory time-limit was not complied with; consequently the Assessing Authority could not lawfully invoke Section 42 after having earlier proceeded under Section 43. Section 49(2) cannot be used to cure an intra-statutory jurisdictional error where the authority erroneously chose Section 43 over Section 42. All proceedings and consequential acts founded on the invalid AVR and the delayed Form VAT-306 notice therefore collapsed and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
