Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Detention of perishable goods could not be left pending for months without a formal seizure order or timely action under the statutory detention framework. The High Court required the authorities to determine ownership on the basis of the accompanying invoices and the applicable departmental clarification, under which the consignor or consignee is treated as the owner where the prescribed documents accompany the consignment. It also rejected the insistence on the petitioner's personal appearance, holding that representation through an advocate is permitted in GST proceedings. The matter was directed to be heard immediately, with liberty to deposit the amount under Section 129(1)(a) and for release to follow in accordance with law if payment was accepted.
Detention of perishable goods could not be left pending for months without a formal seizure order or timely action under the statutory detention framework. The High Court required the authorities to determine ownership on the basis of the accompanying invoices and the applicable departmental clarification, under which the consignor or consignee is treated as the owner where the prescribed documents accompany the consignment. It also rejected the insistence on the petitioner's personal appearance, holding that representation through an advocate is permitted in GST proceedings. The matter was directed to be heard immediately, with liberty to deposit the amount under Section 129(1)(a) and for release to follow in accordance with law if payment was accepted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
