Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Recall of ex parte orders requires a showing of sufficient cause for non-appearance, whereas review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause where repeated opportunities had been granted, including a final opportunity after the applicant was already proceeded ex parte, yet the applicant remained absent. Illness and death in one partner's family and lapse of previous counsel were held insufficient, especially when other partners of the firm also gave no explanation. The request to place additional material on record, including a later Supreme Court decision, was not considered because recall itself failed. The recall applications were dismissed.
Recall of ex parte orders requires a showing of sufficient cause for non-appearance, whereas review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause where repeated opportunities had been granted, including a final opportunity after the applicant was already proceeded ex parte, yet the applicant remained absent. Illness and death in one partner's family and lapse of previous counsel were held insufficient, especially when other partners of the firm also gave no explanation. The request to place additional material on record, including a later Supreme Court decision, was not considered because recall itself failed. The recall applications were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
