Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Two conflicting orders-in-original were issued by the same authority for the same shipment and duty drawback claim, reflecting total non-application of mind and legal infirmity. Once the earlier order-in-original was found unsustainable, the later order-in-original could not independently survive and was liable to be treated as a nullity because two inconsistent adjudications cannot coexist on the same claim. Accordingly, both orders-in-original and consequential communications/notices were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits under the Customs Act, after following due procedure and principles of natural justice, within a fixed timeframe. - HC
Two conflicting orders-in-original were issued by the same authority for the same shipment and duty drawback claim, reflecting total non-application of mind and legal infirmity. Once the earlier order-in-original was found unsustainable, the later order-in-original could not independently survive and was liable to be treated as a nullity because two inconsistent adjudications cannot coexist on the same claim. Accordingly, both orders-in-original and consequential communications/notices were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits under the Customs Act, after following due procedure and principles of natural justice, within a fixed timeframe. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
