Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A Customs Broker was not shown to have breached regulations 10(d), 10(e) or 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations. Regulation 10(d) only required advice to the client to comply with the Act and allied laws, and the authorization letter recorded that such advice had been given, so no further particulars were necessary. Regulation 10(e) was not violated because the exporter held a valid GST registration on the relevant export date, making the earlier cancellation immaterial. Regulation 10(n) also failed on the same basis, and the Tribunal noted that the Joint Commissioner had found no breach. The revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security were set aside, and restoration of the licence was directed.
A Customs Broker was not shown to have breached regulations 10(d), 10(e) or 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations. Regulation 10(d) only required advice to the client to comply with the Act and allied laws, and the authorization letter recorded that such advice had been given, so no further particulars were necessary. Regulation 10(e) was not violated because the exporter held a valid GST registration on the relevant export date, making the earlier cancellation immaterial. Regulation 10(n) also failed on the same basis, and the Tribunal noted that the Joint Commissioner had found no breach. The revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security were set aside, and restoration of the licence was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
