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...
An adjudication order alleging ineligible input tax credit on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A could not stand where the authority failed to consider the reconciliation statement specifically furnished by the taxpayer and did not give an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The HC held that, because the dispute was factual and the reply referred to reconciliation material in Annexure-1, the authority was required to re-examine that material before concluding that no reconciliation had been produced. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain the ITC mismatch.
An adjudication order alleging ineligible input tax credit on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A could not stand where the authority failed to consider the reconciliation statement specifically furnished by the taxpayer and did not give an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The HC held that, because the dispute was factual and the reply referred to reconciliation material in Annexure-1, the authority was required to re-examine that material before concluding that no reconciliation had been produced. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain the ITC mismatch.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
