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...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
