CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
A GST assessment confirming tax was set aside only to the extent of defect No. 1, because the assessee had not filed a proper reply with supporting documents to substantiate its exemption claim. The High Court noted that the adjudicating authority was not at fault for acting within the statutory timeline under Section 73, but balanced the interests of both sides by ordering de novo adjudication limited to that defect. The assessee was required to deposit 5% of the disputed tax and file the requisite documents, after which a fresh order on merits would be passed and any bank attachment would stand vacated on compliance.
A GST assessment confirming tax was set aside only to the extent of defect No. 1, because the assessee had not filed a proper reply with supporting documents to substantiate its exemption claim. The High Court noted that the adjudicating authority was not at fault for acting within the statutory timeline under Section 73, but balanced the interests of both sides by ordering de novo adjudication limited to that defect. The assessee was required to deposit 5% of the disputed tax and file the requisite documents, after which a fresh order on merits would be passed and any bank attachment would stand vacated on compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
