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...
Challenge to blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A was rejected where inspection and recorded statements indicated availment of credit on disputed invoices; the impugned blocking was held to fall within the regulatory scheme and not amenable to interference. A jurisdictional objection that a subordinate officer effected the block was dismissed because blocking was shown to be authorised by senior officers. The court nevertheless granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and directed that the concerned officer hear the petitioner and decide the merits expeditiously, preferably within thirty days.
Challenge to blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A was rejected where inspection and recorded statements indicated availment of credit on disputed invoices; the impugned blocking was held to fall within the regulatory scheme and not amenable to interference. A jurisdictional objection that a subordinate officer effected the block was dismissed because blocking was shown to be authorised by senior officers. The court nevertheless granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and directed that the concerned officer hear the petitioner and decide the merits expeditiously, preferably within thirty days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.