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...
Post-sale discounts and non-monetary benefits in a principal-to-principal supply dispute could not be examined on merits because the factual basis before the appellate authority had materially changed. The original advance ruling had proceeded on the supplier-franchise relationship and the absence of any prior agreement on such benefits, while the appeal introduced a different case based on principal-to-principal transactions and prior scheme documents. As the altered facts were divergent from those placed before the original authority, the AAAR held that the correctness of the earlier ruling could not be determined on that record and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration in accordance with natural justice.
Post-sale discounts and non-monetary benefits in a principal-to-principal supply dispute could not be examined on merits because the factual basis before the appellate authority had materially changed. The original advance ruling had proceeded on the supplier-franchise relationship and the absence of any prior agreement on such benefits, while the appeal introduced a different case based on principal-to-principal transactions and prior scheme documents. As the altered facts were divergent from those placed before the original authority, the AAAR held that the correctness of the earlier ruling could not be determined on that record and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration in accordance with natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
