Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Clubbing alleged clandestine removal with undervaluation for GST arrest was held unsustainable because the court found no legal justification for treating the two allegations as the same offence, and noted that undervaluation required separate statutory determination; on that basis, the arrest and remand lost their foundation. It also found non-compliance with mandatory arrest safeguards, including failure to supply grounds of arrest in the prescribed manner, inadequate intimation to a relative or friend, omission of the place of arrest, and a mechanical remand order that ignored the accused's objections and the applicable law. The detention, arrest, remand and custody were therefore held illegal, and the proceedings were quashed with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Clubbing alleged clandestine removal with undervaluation for GST arrest was held unsustainable because the court found no legal justification for treating the two allegations as the same offence, and noted that undervaluation required separate statutory determination; on that basis, the arrest and remand lost their foundation. It also found non-compliance with mandatory arrest safeguards, including failure to supply grounds of arrest in the prescribed manner, inadequate intimation to a relative or friend, omission of the place of arrest, and a mechanical remand order that ignored the accused's objections and the applicable law. The detention, arrest, remand and custody were therefore held illegal, and the proceedings were quashed with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.