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...
A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld.
A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
