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 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 
