Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
A High Court held that an investigation-stage communication issued after the petitioner's representative indicated willingness to pay differential duty was not a statutory demand fastening customs liability, so the communication was quashed and the department was required to commence regular adjudication by issuing a show cause notice. The Court also held that payment made during investigation, whether under protest or otherwise, does not bar adjudication and may be appropriated only against the final liability determined in that process. Refund of the amount deposited during investigation was declined, and no further demand or recovery was permitted until adjudication was completed.
A High Court held that an investigation-stage communication issued after the petitioner's representative indicated willingness to pay differential duty was not a statutory demand fastening customs liability, so the communication was quashed and the department was required to commence regular adjudication by issuing a show cause notice. The Court also held that payment made during investigation, whether under protest or otherwise, does not bar adjudication and may be appropriated only against the final liability determined in that process. Refund of the amount deposited during investigation was declined, and no further demand or recovery was permitted until adjudication was completed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
