Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
