Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Mechanical approval without recorded reasons and failure to communicate any extension before expiry of the six-month period meant the seized cash could not lawfully be retained under the Customs Act; retention after that period was therefore without jurisdiction and the petitioners were entitled to return of the cash. Transfer of the cash to the income tax authorities during pendency of the writ proceedings, after customs had already lost jurisdiction, was treated as overreaching the court, justifying costs, though the amount was reduced after apology and an assurance of future compliance.
Mechanical approval without recorded reasons and failure to communicate any extension before expiry of the six-month period meant the seized cash could not lawfully be retained under the Customs Act; retention after that period was therefore without jurisdiction and the petitioners were entitled to return of the cash. Transfer of the cash to the income tax authorities during pendency of the writ proceedings, after customs had already lost jurisdiction, was treated as overreaching the court, justifying costs, though the amount was reduced after apology and an assurance of future compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
