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...
Properties treated as proceeds of crime remained attachable where the appellants failed to prove acquisition from independent lawful sources or payment of consideration. The Appellate Tribunal found that the respondent had established the foundational case that the assets originally stood with M/s AGFVIL and were later transferred through intermediary, namesake transactions without supporting proof of genuine purchase. For one appellant, the record showed only a shifted name without documentary evidence of consideration; for another, alleged loans, seller payment, and bank trail were not substantiated; for the third, the later explanation of source was inconsistent with her own statement and unsupported by material. The confirmation of the provisional attachment was upheld.
Properties treated as proceeds of crime remained attachable where the appellants failed to prove acquisition from independent lawful sources or payment of consideration. The Appellate Tribunal found that the respondent had established the foundational case that the assets originally stood with M/s AGFVIL and were later transferred through intermediary, namesake transactions without supporting proof of genuine purchase. For one appellant, the record showed only a shifted name without documentary evidence of consideration; for another, alleged loans, seller payment, and bank trail were not substantiated; for the third, the later explanation of source was inconsistent with her own statement and unsupported by material. The confirmation of the provisional attachment was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
