Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A jurisdictional objection based on the statutory bar against parallel proceedings was rejected as premature because no material was produced to show initiation of adjudicatory proceedings, identity of subject matter, tax period, or cause of action; a writ court could not record even a prima facie finding without such foundational facts. The challenge to provisional attachment for want of a pre-decisional hearing also failed, as Section 83 was treated as not requiring prior notice and the statutory scheme was held to provide a complete post-decisional remedy under Rule 159(5). The petitioner's custody at the time of attachment did not, by itself, invalidate the action, and writ interference was declined.
A jurisdictional objection based on the statutory bar against parallel proceedings was rejected as premature because no material was produced to show initiation of adjudicatory proceedings, identity of subject matter, tax period, or cause of action; a writ court could not record even a prima facie finding without such foundational facts. The challenge to provisional attachment for want of a pre-decisional hearing also failed, as Section 83 was treated as not requiring prior notice and the statutory scheme was held to provide a complete post-decisional remedy under Rule 159(5). The petitioner's custody at the time of attachment did not, by itself, invalidate the action, and writ interference was declined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
