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...
Regulation 17 required the licensing authority to independently consider the inquiry report, the broker's representation and the material on record before deciding the case; an order that merely adopted the inquiry officer's conclusions without fact-specific findings failed legal scrutiny, so revocation, forfeiture and penalty could not stand. On the alleged overvaluation of export goods, no violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) or 10(n) was made out because there were no concrete findings of incorrect advice, withheld material, record-keeping default or failure of antecedent verification, and a Customs Broker had no role in determining export value negotiated between exporter and overseas buyer. Only Regulation 10(q) was attracted for non-participation in the inquiry proceedings, warranting a reduced penalty.
Regulation 17 required the licensing authority to independently consider the inquiry report, the broker's representation and the material on record before deciding the case; an order that merely adopted the inquiry officer's conclusions without fact-specific findings failed legal scrutiny, so revocation, forfeiture and penalty could not stand. On the alleged overvaluation of export goods, no violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) or 10(n) was made out because there were no concrete findings of incorrect advice, withheld material, record-keeping default or failure of antecedent verification, and a Customs Broker had no role in determining export value negotiated between exporter and overseas buyer. Only Regulation 10(q) was attracted for non-participation in the inquiry proceedings, warranting a reduced penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.