Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Adjudication under Sections 73 and 74 is dispute-based and is...
Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withholding.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Adjudication under Sections 73 and 74 is dispute-based and is not confined to a single financial year or tax period; a composite notice may validly cover multiple periods, and under Section 74 may include multiple noticees, subject to objections in individual proceedings. However, Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel proceedings on the same subject-matter once formal adjudication has begun, so overlapping proceedings were held unsustainable. The statutory timelines for issuing notice and passing the adjudication order were treated as mandatory, making notices issued without the prescribed lead time time-barred. One notice could not support separate orders by different authorities absent lawful transfer, and a direction to withhold payment was set aside for lack of statutory authority.
Adjudication under Sections 73 and 74 is dispute-based and is not confined to a single financial year or tax period; a composite notice may validly cover multiple periods, and under Section 74 may include multiple noticees, subject to objections in individual proceedings. However, Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel proceedings on the same subject-matter once formal adjudication has begun, so overlapping proceedings were held unsustainable. The statutory timelines for issuing notice and passing the adjudication order were treated as mandatory, making notices issued without the prescribed lead time time-barred. One notice could not support separate orders by different authorities absent lawful transfer, and a direction to withhold payment was set aside for lack of statutory authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
