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...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
