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...
Advance ruling sought on eligibility for refund of unutilised input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure for manufacture and outward supply of cotton yarn; AAR holds that refund query falls outside the enumerated matters under the provision governing advance rulings and is therefore not maintainable, resulting in rejection of the application. AAR further finds the application inadmissible because the applicant is a consultant raising questions on behalf of a client and the question does not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant; outcome: application liable to be rejected. AAR notes advance rulings may be void ab initio if obtained by fraud or suppression and that rulings bind the applicant and concerned officer.
Advance ruling sought on eligibility for refund of unutilised input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure for manufacture and outward supply of cotton yarn; AAR holds that refund query falls outside the enumerated matters under the provision governing advance rulings and is therefore not maintainable, resulting in rejection of the application. AAR further finds the application inadmissible because the applicant is a consultant raising questions on behalf of a client and the question does not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant; outcome: application liable to be rejected. AAR notes advance rulings may be void ab initio if obtained by fraud or suppression and that rulings bind the applicant and concerned officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.