The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed without giving effect to binding DRP directions violates section 144C. Such an order is void ab initio and cannot be sustained once the statutory time limit has expired.
It was ruled that the date of recording the satisfaction note is the deemed search date for a non-searched person. The ten-year limitation must be counted from this date, not from the original search.
The Tribunal deleted both substantive and protective additions made across multiple years on the same alleged receipts. It held that such duplication results in impermissible multiple taxation of identical amounts.
The government has notified a clear wage ceiling for supervisory roles. Earnings above this limit remove such employees from worker coverage under the Code.
Vedanta Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai Reiterates: Once DGFT Issues EODC, Customs Cannot Deny Advance Authorization Benefits Vedanta Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2026-VIL-158-CESTAT-CHE-CU] The Chennai Bench of the CESTAT has delivered a significant ruling wherein it was held that Customs authorities cannot question or deny duty exemption benefits once DGFT […]
Explains how the 2025 amendment removes going-concern sales from liquidation. Highlights the shift toward speed and finality over revival.
Explains the shift from transaction value to MRP-based valuation under Rule 31D. Highlights how GST will now be calculated on printed retail price.
GSTR-3B में लागू नए सिस्टम नियम के तहत RCM ITC अब सीमित कर दी गई है। तय सीमा से अधिक क्लेम करने पर रिटर्न ब्लॉक हो जाएगी।
Explains statutory and constitutional remedies available after an ex parte GST order. Highlights how improper service can revive relief even after appeal timelines lapse.
Explains how exceeding the Rs.2.5 lakh B2B tax limit under Rule 14A now triggers a portal-level block on GSTR-1. Highlights the resulting compliance deadlock and its implications.
