Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Breach of the secure transit obligation under cargo handling regulations, by itself, did not establish abetment of attempted export of prohibited goods. The essential basis for penalty under Section 114 was knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, or admissible evidence of active participation or positive collusion, and that evidentiary burden was not met. A mere omission in secure transport, without proof of such knowledge or abetment, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Breach of the secure transit obligation under cargo handling regulations, by itself, did not establish abetment of attempted export of prohibited goods. The essential basis for penalty under Section 114 was knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, or admissible evidence of active participation or positive collusion, and that evidentiary burden was not met. A mere omission in secure transport, without proof of such knowledge or abetment, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.