Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Reassessment notices issued under the new regime were held time-barred because, for notices originally issued between 01/04/2021 and 30/06/2021, only the surviving time available up to 30/06/2021 could be used after excluding the stayed period and the two weeks allowed for response. Applying the Supreme Court rulings in Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal, the Tribunal held that the fresh notice had to be issued within the remaining limitation under section 149. In this case, the notice issued on 25/07/2022 exceeded that limit, so the reassessment proceedings and assessment orders were quashed, with other grounds left open.
Reassessment notices issued under the new regime were held time-barred because, for notices originally issued between 01/04/2021 and 30/06/2021, only the surviving time available up to 30/06/2021 could be used after excluding the stayed period and the two weeks allowed for response. Applying the Supreme Court rulings in Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal, the Tribunal held that the fresh notice had to be issued within the remaining limitation under section 149. In this case, the notice issued on 25/07/2022 exceeded that limit, so the reassessment proceedings and assessment orders were quashed, with other grounds left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.