Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
For smuggled notified gold recovered from premises under a person's possession or control, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful import, procurement or possession. On the facts recorded, no documents or plausible explanation supported licit storage, and the surrounding circumstances independently showed keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation, so liability under sections 112(a) and 112(b) was sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the seized gold lacked foreign markings and the departmental statements had not satisfied the safeguards contemplated by section 138B, making those factors relevant to quantum but not to exoneration. The appeal was partly allowed only on penalty.
For smuggled notified gold recovered from premises under a person's possession or control, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful import, procurement or possession. On the facts recorded, no documents or plausible explanation supported licit storage, and the surrounding circumstances independently showed keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation, so liability under sections 112(a) and 112(b) was sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the seized gold lacked foreign markings and the departmental statements had not satisfied the safeguards contemplated by section 138B, making those factors relevant to quantum but not to exoneration. The appeal was partly allowed only on penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
