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...
Natural gas supplied under the GSPA was held to be an inter-State sale concluded at Gadimoga in Andhra Pradesh, where delivery, measurement, title and risk passed to the buyer's designee; the subsequent movement through a common carrier pipeline into Uttar Pradesh was only transportation and did not convert the transaction into an intra-State sale. Co-mingling, re-metering, fungibility and processing during transit did not alter the sale's character, and Uttar Pradesh therefore lacked jurisdiction to levy VAT. Explanation 3 to Section 3 of the CST Act was treated as clarificatory, reflecting the pre-existing legal position and applying to the original scheme of the provision.
Natural gas supplied under the GSPA was held to be an inter-State sale concluded at Gadimoga in Andhra Pradesh, where delivery, measurement, title and risk passed to the buyer's designee; the subsequent movement through a common carrier pipeline into Uttar Pradesh was only transportation and did not convert the transaction into an intra-State sale. Co-mingling, re-metering, fungibility and processing during transit did not alter the sale's character, and Uttar Pradesh therefore lacked jurisdiction to levy VAT. Explanation 3 to Section 3 of the CST Act was treated as clarificatory, reflecting the pre-existing legal position and applying to the original scheme of the provision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
