Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Section 16(5) was held to contain a non-obstante clause that overrides the time bar in Section 16(4) for the specified financial years, so input tax credit could not be denied solely for delay where the returns were filed before 30.11.2021. Because the impugned order rejected the claim only on the basis of Section 16(4), and the returns had been filed on 30.09.2020, the Court set aside the order-in-original and the show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 16(5), leaving other contentions open.
Section 16(5) was held to contain a non-obstante clause that overrides the time bar in Section 16(4) for the specified financial years, so input tax credit could not be denied solely for delay where the returns were filed before 30.11.2021. Because the impugned order rejected the claim only on the basis of Section 16(4), and the returns had been filed on 30.09.2020, the Court set aside the order-in-original and the show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 16(5), leaving other contentions open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
