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 High Court held that a beneficial CBDT circular issued under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing prescribed forms must be applied to genuine and bona fide cases, even where the assessment year is not expressly named. The court found that the relevant circular was the one dated 18.11.2024, which addressed condonation of delay, and that omission of AY 2023-24 was not decisive because the circular was meant to remedy genuine hardship. Rejecting a narrow year-specific reading as anomalous and unjust, the court set aside the refusal order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
A High Court held that a beneficial CBDT circular issued under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing prescribed forms must be applied to genuine and bona fide cases, even where the assessment year is not expressly named. The court found that the relevant circular was the one dated 18.11.2024, which addressed condonation of delay, and that omission of AY 2023-24 was not decisive because the circular was meant to remedy genuine hardship. Rejecting a narrow year-specific reading as anomalous and unjust, the court set aside the refusal order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.