Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
CESTAT treated the threshold question as one of jurisdiction: whether customs authorities and the Tribunal can determine disputes involving interpretation of IGST rate schedules on imports, given the separate appellate framework under the GST enactments. Noting conflicting views on the issue and examining the Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act and IGST Act scheme, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional conflict required authoritative resolution before any merits review. It therefore referred the formulated questions to the President for constitution of a Larger Bench and left the classification and rate dispute open.
CESTAT treated the threshold question as one of jurisdiction: whether customs authorities and the Tribunal can determine disputes involving interpretation of IGST rate schedules on imports, given the separate appellate framework under the GST enactments. Noting conflicting views on the issue and examining the Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act and IGST Act scheme, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional conflict required authoritative resolution before any merits review. It therefore referred the formulated questions to the President for constitution of a Larger Bench and left the classification and rate dispute open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.