Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
