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...
Writ jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum is not constituted or functional, because an aggrieved person cannot be left remediless. Once the GSTAT became functional and the appeal-filing timeline was notified, the writ court declined to retain the challenge and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. The Court held that the absence of a functional tribunal did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8); the petitioner was required to file the appeal before GSTAT within the notified period after making the prescribed deposit. The merits of the first appellate order were not examined.
Writ jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum is not constituted or functional, because an aggrieved person cannot be left remediless. Once the GSTAT became functional and the appeal-filing timeline was notified, the writ court declined to retain the challenge and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. The Court held that the absence of a functional tribunal did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8); the petitioner was required to file the appeal before GSTAT within the notified period after making the prescribed deposit. The merits of the first appellate order were not examined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
