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...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
HC held that rectification withdrawing the claimed exemption and converting a refund into demand was procedurally invalid because no prior notice or hearing was given under the proviso to Section 154(3), and the refund was adjusted without prior intimation under Section 245, breaching natural justice. The Court therefore interfered on procedural grounds and left the merits of the exemption claim open. It also treated the matter as a high-pitched assessment case: since the assessee's appeal was pending with written submissions already on record, recovery was directed to remain stayed until final disposal of the appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
HC held that rectification withdrawing the claimed exemption and converting a refund into demand was procedurally invalid because no prior notice or hearing was given under the proviso to Section 154(3), and the refund was adjusted without prior intimation under Section 245, breaching natural justice. The Court therefore interfered on procedural grounds and left the merits of the exemption claim open. It also treated the matter as a high-pitched assessment case: since the assessee's appeal was pending with written submissions already on record, recovery was directed to remain stayed until final disposal of the appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
