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 officers in West Bengal were competent to intercept and detain goods in transit under the IGST Act, because section 4 operates as a deeming provision and no contrary notification was shown. The claim that West Bengal was only a transport corridor failed, as interception occurred within the State and the accompanying documents did not conclusively establish lawful transit. The Court also held that declaring a registered dealer as an unregistered person in the e-way bill, together with a delivery challan signed by an unauthorised person and not meeting Rules 55 and 138, amounted to actionable contraventions. Detention and penalty under section 129 were therefore sustained.
State GST officers in West Bengal were competent to intercept and detain goods in transit under the IGST Act, because section 4 operates as a deeming provision and no contrary notification was shown. The claim that West Bengal was only a transport corridor failed, as interception occurred within the State and the accompanying documents did not conclusively establish lawful transit. The Court also held that declaring a registered dealer as an unregistered person in the e-way bill, together with a delivery challan signed by an unauthorised person and not meeting Rules 55 and 138, amounted to actionable contraventions. Detention and penalty under section 129 were therefore sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
