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...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
