Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
State GST authorities may initiate intelligence-based enforcement action under the GST regime even where the taxpayer is administratively assigned to the Central administration, so the challenge to jurisdiction failed. Disputes over classification and the assessing authority's finding of suppression for invoking Section 74 involved disputed facts and could not be examined in writ jurisdiction, so those objections had to be pursued before the statutory appellate authority under Section 107. The writ court was therefore correct in directing the taxpayer to avail the appeal remedy while leaving all grounds, including jurisdiction, open before the appellate forum.
State GST authorities may initiate intelligence-based enforcement action under the GST regime even where the taxpayer is administratively assigned to the Central administration, so the challenge to jurisdiction failed. Disputes over classification and the assessing authority's finding of suppression for invoking Section 74 involved disputed facts and could not be examined in writ jurisdiction, so those objections had to be pursued before the statutory appellate authority under Section 107. The writ court was therefore correct in directing the taxpayer to avail the appeal remedy while leaving all grounds, including jurisdiction, open before the appellate forum.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
