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...
Prior approval of the specified authority is a condition precedent for issuance of notice under section 148, and where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval must come from the authority prescribed under section 151(ii). As the approval for the section 148A(d) order was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority, the reassessment initiation was jurisdictionally defective. The Tribunal held that this non-compliance vitiated jurisdiction and rendered the notice under section 148 void ab initio. Accordingly, the notice, the consequential reopening proceedings, and the reassessment order were quashed.
Prior approval of the specified authority is a condition precedent for issuance of notice under section 148, and where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval must come from the authority prescribed under section 151(ii). As the approval for the section 148A(d) order was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority, the reassessment initiation was jurisdictionally defective. The Tribunal held that this non-compliance vitiated jurisdiction and rendered the notice under section 148 void ab initio. Accordingly, the notice, the consequential reopening proceedings, and the reassessment order were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
