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 final assessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer passed it without first serving the draft assessment order, thereby denying the assessee the statutory opportunity to object before the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C. The Court distinguished Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., noting that a draft order had in fact been prepared, so the proceedings were not to be quashed in entirety. Instead, the final assessment order and consequential penalty notice were set aside, the assessee was directed to be served with the draft order, and the statutory objection process was restored, with the intervening period excluded from limitation.
The final assessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer passed it without first serving the draft assessment order, thereby denying the assessee the statutory opportunity to object before the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C. The Court distinguished Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., noting that a draft order had in fact been prepared, so the proceedings were not to be quashed in entirety. Instead, the final assessment order and consequential penalty notice were set aside, the assessee was directed to be served with the draft order, and the statutory objection process was restored, with the intervening period excluded from limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.