Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Validity of reopening under section 147/148 is contested on the ground that the sanction required from the competent authority was not obtained; the notice issued in AY 2015-16 on 28 March 2021 falls within the temporal ratio of the cited Supreme Court authority, but was quashed because the sanction stated on the notice was from the CIT (Exemption) rather than the Joint Commissioner mandated by law, and Revenue cannot contradict the express language of the notice regarding whose satisfaction was obtained. The necessity for sanction by the specific authority is determinative, leading to invalidation of the notice.
Validity of reopening under section 147/148 is contested on the ground that the sanction required from the competent authority was not obtained; the notice issued in AY 2015-16 on 28 March 2021 falls within the temporal ratio of the cited Supreme Court authority, but was quashed because the sanction stated on the notice was from the CIT (Exemption) rather than the Joint Commissioner mandated by law, and Revenue cannot contradict the express language of the notice regarding whose satisfaction was obtained. The necessity for sanction by the specific authority is determinative, leading to invalidation of the notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.