CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
The High Court held that an officer who had earlier issued audit observations could not thereafter pass the ex parte assessment order on the same matter. As the impugned adjudication orders were made by those very officers, the Court found the assessment to be without proper jurisdiction and quashed both the adjudication orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, including bank attachment. The matter was remitted to a proper officer for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.
The High Court held that an officer who had earlier issued audit observations could not thereafter pass the ex parte assessment order on the same matter. As the impugned adjudication orders were made by those very officers, the Court found the assessment to be without proper jurisdiction and quashed both the adjudication orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, including bank attachment. The matter was remitted to a proper officer for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
