Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Customs Broker disciplinary liability under the CBLR, 2013 was upheld for serious failures of due diligence, supervision and verification, where the evidence showed inadequate oversight of customs clearance operations and insufficient verification of exporters' credentials. The Tribunal found these lapses sufficient to establish violations of Regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(n) and 17(9), but it did not find conclusive proof of deliberate collusion, sharing of drawback, illegal gratification or conscious participation in the alleged fraud. On that basis, forfeiture of the security deposit was sustained as a proportionate lesser penalty, revocation of licence was not ordered, and continued suspension could not be justified merely because investigation remained pending.
Customs Broker disciplinary liability under the CBLR, 2013 was upheld for serious failures of due diligence, supervision and verification, where the evidence showed inadequate oversight of customs clearance operations and insufficient verification of exporters' credentials. The Tribunal found these lapses sufficient to establish violations of Regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(n) and 17(9), but it did not find conclusive proof of deliberate collusion, sharing of drawback, illegal gratification or conscious participation in the alleged fraud. On that basis, forfeiture of the security deposit was sustained as a proportionate lesser penalty, revocation of licence was not ordered, and continued suspension could not be justified merely because investigation remained pending.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.