Prior Sanction Requirement: absence of prescribed approval invalidates reassessment notice; limitation also bars notice if escaped income below thresh...
Eligibility for exemption depends on strict construction of the product description; reapers without binder are ineligible, but confiscation and penal...
Customs jurisdiction defined for Principal Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam, covering specified ports, districts and India's adjacent EEZ; effective on pu...
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
