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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
The court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
