Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In writ proceedings, a taxpayer who received a show cause notice alleging wilful suppression and invoking Section 74, but filed no reply, made payment without protest, and accepted before the adjudicating authority that tax, interest and penalty would be paid, was held estopped from taking a contrary stand later. The Court treated the recorded admission and unchallenged adjudication note as decisive, and held that prior voluntary payment after audit detection did not by itself defeat Section 74 where the allegation of suppression remained uncontested. On that basis, no interference under Article 226 was made and the writ challenge failed.
In writ proceedings, a taxpayer who received a show cause notice alleging wilful suppression and invoking Section 74, but filed no reply, made payment without protest, and accepted before the adjudicating authority that tax, interest and penalty would be paid, was held estopped from taking a contrary stand later. The Court treated the recorded admission and unchallenged adjudication note as decisive, and held that prior voluntary payment after audit detection did not by itself defeat Section 74 where the allegation of suppression remained uncontested. On that basis, no interference under Article 226 was made and the writ challenge failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.