Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Where rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 was refused in a dispute concerning deferred availment of ITC alleged to be barred by s.16(4), the governing Notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 was held to clarify both entitlement and procedure for rectification where ITC was treated as wrongly availed solely due to s.16(4), but the taxpayer may be eligible under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Since the rectification applications were founded on this Notification, the appellate authority was required to reconsider the request in light of the prevailing legal framework; consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. - HC
Where rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 was refused in a dispute concerning deferred availment of ITC alleged to be barred by s.16(4), the governing Notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 was held to clarify both entitlement and procedure for rectification where ITC was treated as wrongly availed solely due to s.16(4), but the taxpayer may be eligible under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Since the rectification applications were founded on this Notification, the appellate authority was required to reconsider the request in light of the prevailing legal framework; consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.