Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and, especially where civil imprisonment is sought, require strict compliance with procedure. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority had to first record prima facie satisfaction of clear and wilful disobedience and then issue a specific show-cause notice setting out the exact allegations; a routine notice calling for replies was insufficient, so the contempt finding and punishment were vitiated. It further held that personal punishment for contempt cannot be imposed against corporate entities without identifying the individual officers responsible and giving them an opportunity to defend themselves in their personal capacity. The contempt order and imprisonment direction were set aside, with liberty to revive proceedings after proper identification and fresh pleadings.
Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and, especially where civil imprisonment is sought, require strict compliance with procedure. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority had to first record prima facie satisfaction of clear and wilful disobedience and then issue a specific show-cause notice setting out the exact allegations; a routine notice calling for replies was insufficient, so the contempt finding and punishment were vitiated. It further held that personal punishment for contempt cannot be imposed against corporate entities without identifying the individual officers responsible and giving them an opportunity to defend themselves in their personal capacity. The contempt order and imprisonment direction were set aside, with liberty to revive proceedings after proper identification and fresh pleadings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
