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 a rectification order under Section 154(7) cannot be passed after four years from the end of the financial year in which the original order was made. As the original order was dated February 25, 2015, the limitation expired on March 31, 2019, but the rectification order was issued on March 25, 2022; it was therefore time-barred and a jurisdictional error. The Court also noted that the Department had not shown service of prior notice under Section 154(3), and accepted the objection that the order lacked a Document Identification Number. The writ petition was allowed and the rectification order, together with consequential recovery proceedings, was set aside.
HC held that a rectification order under Section 154(7) cannot be passed after four years from the end of the financial year in which the original order was made. As the original order was dated February 25, 2015, the limitation expired on March 31, 2019, but the rectification order was issued on March 25, 2022; it was therefore time-barred and a jurisdictional error. The Court also noted that the Department had not shown service of prior notice under Section 154(3), and accepted the objection that the order lacked a Document Identification Number. The writ petition was allowed and the rectification order, together with consequential recovery proceedings, was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
