Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The Supreme Court held that inter-connected merger steps were...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The Supreme Court held that inter-connected merger steps were adequately notified where the relevant agreements and their commercial linkages were placed on record and assessed in substance, so the transaction could not be treated as a complete non-notification. Section 43A could not be used as an omnibus penalty for alleged under-characterisation once a notice had been filed, reviewed and approved; any complaint of omission or false statement had to satisfy the specific ingredients of Sections 44 and 45. The Court further held that the post-one-year directions reopening the approved combination, keeping approval in abeyance and requiring a fresh Form II filing were beyond jurisdiction, lacked statutory authority, and in any event breached natural justice.
The Supreme Court held that inter-connected merger steps were adequately notified where the relevant agreements and their commercial linkages were placed on record and assessed in substance, so the transaction could not be treated as a complete non-notification. Section 43A could not be used as an omnibus penalty for alleged under-characterisation once a notice had been filed, reviewed and approved; any complaint of omission or false statement had to satisfy the specific ingredients of Sections 44 and 45. The Court further held that the post-one-year directions reopening the approved combination, keeping approval in abeyance and requiring a fresh Form II filing were beyond jurisdiction, lacked statutory authority, and in any event breached natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
