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...
Delay of about 57 days in filing an appeal under s.107 of the 2017 Act against an order under s.73 was held to be supported by sufficient cause where the delay was attributable to the illness of the appellant's accountant, affirmed by affidavit and not disbelieved by the appellate authority; rejection solely because the accountant was not an authorized signatory ignored the accountant's material role in preparing the appeal and did not establish gross negligence. Applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, the delay was condoned, the appellate rejection was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits. - HC
Delay of about 57 days in filing an appeal under s.107 of the 2017 Act against an order under s.73 was held to be supported by sufficient cause where the delay was attributable to the illness of the appellant's accountant, affirmed by affidavit and not disbelieved by the appellate authority; rejection solely because the accountant was not an authorized signatory ignored the accountant's material role in preparing the appeal and did not establish gross negligence. Applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, the delay was condoned, the appellate rejection was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
