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...
Whether the 01.02.2019 amendment curtailing the time for refund applications could retrospectively extinguish accrued entitlement to refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure was determined by applying the presumption against retrospectivity to substantive curtailment of vested rights; absent express retrospective operation, the unamended "relevant date" continued to govern periods prior to the amendment, and the refund claims were not time-barred, including for July 2017-December 2018 (also within extended time under a notification) and January-March 2019 under Section 54. The rejection for January-March 2019 for alleged non-receipt of eligible inputs was found unreasoned. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination. - HC
Whether the 01.02.2019 amendment curtailing the time for refund applications could retrospectively extinguish accrued entitlement to refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure was determined by applying the presumption against retrospectivity to substantive curtailment of vested rights; absent express retrospective operation, the unamended "relevant date" continued to govern periods prior to the amendment, and the refund claims were not time-barred, including for July 2017-December 2018 (also within extended time under a notification) and January-March 2019 under Section 54. The rejection for January-March 2019 for alleged non-receipt of eligible inputs was found unreasoned. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
