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" ?
The HC declined to quash a GST show cause notice at the writ stage, holding that interference under Article 226 is confined to exceptional cases where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or facially illegal. The earlier classification ruling in the petitioner's own case did not conclude the present demand because the notice rested on a different foundation and on material gathered in enquiry, including the petitioner's documents. Questions on bifurcation, supply character, applicable rate and limitation were matters for reply before the proper officer, not writ review. The petition was dismissed with liberty to respond to the notice within four weeks, and all merits objections were kept open.
The HC declined to quash a GST show cause notice at the writ stage, holding that interference under Article 226 is confined to exceptional cases where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or facially illegal. The earlier classification ruling in the petitioner's own case did not conclude the present demand because the notice rested on a different foundation and on material gathered in enquiry, including the petitioner's documents. Questions on bifurcation, supply character, applicable rate and limitation were matters for reply before the proper officer, not writ review. The petition was dismissed with liberty to respond to the notice within four weeks, and all merits objections were kept open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
