Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Rejection of the waiver application under Section 128A(1) could not stand because it was based on an incorrect statutory premise: the authority treated the underlying assessment as one under Section 74, whereas the record showed it had been passed under Section 73 and this was confirmed by the respondent. The Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner. Any dispute about whether the petitioner had made sufficient payment was left open for reconsideration on remand, and the authority was left free to proceed in accordance with law if full payment had not in fact been made.
Rejection of the waiver application under Section 128A(1) could not stand because it was based on an incorrect statutory premise: the authority treated the underlying assessment as one under Section 74, whereas the record showed it had been passed under Section 73 and this was confirmed by the respondent. The Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner. Any dispute about whether the petitioner had made sufficient payment was left open for reconsideration on remand, and the authority was left free to proceed in accordance with law if full payment had not in fact been made.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
