Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Penalty against a customs broker failed where the import dispute was treated as an interpretational classification issue and the importer had already been exonerated for absence of mala fide intent. On those facts, a broker who merely filed Bills of Entry on the importer's instructions could not be said to have abetted evasion, and the ingredients for penalty based on false declaration were not made out. The Tribunal also held that the objection on invocation of the larger period would apply equally to the appellants. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were deleted and the appeals were allowed.
Penalty against a customs broker failed where the import dispute was treated as an interpretational classification issue and the importer had already been exonerated for absence of mala fide intent. On those facts, a broker who merely filed Bills of Entry on the importer's instructions could not be said to have abetted evasion, and the ingredients for penalty based on false declaration were not made out. The Tribunal also held that the objection on invocation of the larger period would apply equally to the appellants. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were deleted and the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.