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...
A single show-cause notice or composite assessment order under the GST Act cannot cover more than one tax period, and once the annual return due date is reached, it cannot extend beyond one year. Following prior Division Bench precedent, the HC held that the impugned order, as it covered multiple financial years, was invalid and was set aside on that ground alone. The matter was remanded, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year, and the intervening period was directed to be excluded for limitation. Other grounds of challenge were left open.
A single show-cause notice or composite assessment order under the GST Act cannot cover more than one tax period, and once the annual return due date is reached, it cannot extend beyond one year. Following prior Division Bench precedent, the HC held that the impugned order, as it covered multiple financial years, was invalid and was set aside on that ground alone. The matter was remanded, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year, and the intervening period was directed to be excluded for limitation. Other grounds of challenge were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.