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...
HC held that, although the procedural requirements under s.68 and r.138 CGST Rules for movement of goods were ostensibly complied with and the vehicle was no longer in transit, the petitioner's conduct disentitled it to equitable relief under Art. 226. The record established that the petitioner, in collusion with others, had devised a systematic scheme to defraud the revenue by fabricating sham transactions and availing fraudulent input tax credit through bogus entities and fictitious outward liabilities, exploiting systemic gaps in the GST framework. HC declined to interfere with the seizure and detention proceedings, refused the relief of release of goods and conveyance, and dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 5,00,000 to be recovered from the petitioner-company through its Director.
HC held that, although the procedural requirements under s.68 and r.138 CGST Rules for movement of goods were ostensibly complied with and the vehicle was no longer in transit, the petitioner's conduct disentitled it to equitable relief under Art. 226. The record established that the petitioner, in collusion with others, had devised a systematic scheme to defraud the revenue by fabricating sham transactions and availing fraudulent input tax credit through bogus entities and fictitious outward liabilities, exploiting systemic gaps in the GST framework. HC declined to interfere with the seizure and detention proceedings, refused the relief of release of goods and conveyance, and dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 5,00,000 to be recovered from the petitioner-company through its Director.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
