The Court upheld the customs officer’s reasonable belief for seizing goods over alleged misclassification and found the challenge premature due to pending statutory proceedings. The ruling confirms that classification disputes must be resolved through adjudication under the Customs Act.
The Court held that the premix, understood popularly as instant coffee, must be classified under the specific entry for coffee rather than the general entry for beverage powders. The ruling affirms that common usage prevails over ingredient percentages.
The Court dismissed the appeal because the issue had already been decided in an earlier judgment. It held that the previous ruling granting exemption remained binding and unchanged.
Court upholds ITAT’s refusal to stay tax recovery, citing the petitioner’s prolonged inaction and failure to meet conditions. Key takeaway: procedural lapses undermined the stay request.
Delhi High Court set aside the GST SCN and consequent order after petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to file a reply or attend a personal hearing. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Delhi High Court remanded the GST SCN for Financial Year 2019-20 after petitioner failed to respond due to consultant oversight. Costs of Rs. 20,000 were imposed, with the matter to be reconsidered after personal hearing.
The court held that undisclosed investments in school property could be assessed against the wife due to her familial control over the educational society. Seized documents from the husband’s premises were relevant and sufficient evidence.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer was invalid, resulting in the reassessment order being set aside.
The court ruled that a minor error in the PIN code of a consignee does not justify seizure under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The High Court emphasized that CBIC circulars are binding and no tax evasion can be presumed from such technical mistakes.
The Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks and directed the Appellate Authority to decide on substantive grounds. This establishes that procedural delays should not bar appeals against registration cancellations.
