Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A belated challenge to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction failed because no objection was raised during assessment or before completion of the assessment, and the point was first taken only as an additional ground; the tribunal therefore treated the objection as barred by the statutory time limit. The addition for unexplained money was also sustained because the cash book did not evidence availability of cash on the date of seizure, with no entries for the intervening period and no support for the claim that the cash belonged to the firm or had been withdrawn for purchases. The appeal was dismissed.
A belated challenge to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction failed because no objection was raised during assessment or before completion of the assessment, and the point was first taken only as an additional ground; the tribunal therefore treated the objection as barred by the statutory time limit. The addition for unexplained money was also sustained because the cash book did not evidence availability of cash on the date of seizure, with no entries for the intervening period and no support for the claim that the cash belonged to the firm or had been withdrawn for purchases. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.