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" ?
An ex parte rejection of a GST refund claim without a deficiency memo and without affording a hearing was procedurally invalid, so the refund application had to be reconsidered in the manner prescribed by the rules. The Court noted that a subsequent refund application had been filed, a deficiency memo had been issued on that application, and it was required to be taken to its logical conclusion rather than denied on a pedantic view. The designated officer was directed to decide the refund application and related applications afresh under Rules 90 and 92, uninfluenced by the earlier rejection order or the appellate dismissal on limitation, with merits left open.
An ex parte rejection of a GST refund claim without a deficiency memo and without affording a hearing was procedurally invalid, so the refund application had to be reconsidered in the manner prescribed by the rules. The Court noted that a subsequent refund application had been filed, a deficiency memo had been issued on that application, and it was required to be taken to its logical conclusion rather than denied on a pedantic view. The designated officer was directed to decide the refund application and related applications afresh under Rules 90 and 92, uninfluenced by the earlier rejection order or the appellate dismissal on limitation, with merits left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
