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...
Declared export transaction value cannot be rejected merely on...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermissible.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Declared export transaction value cannot be rejected merely on parallel or pro-forma invoices unrelated to the disputed consignment. Rejection requires contemporaneous prices of identical goods, market inquiry, or cogent evidence of manipulation such as financial flow-back from the foreign buyer. As no such evidence established overvaluation, the declared value was accepted and redemption fine was set aside because the goods had already been exported. Penalties on both a partnership firm and its partner for the same infraction amount to impermissible double punishment, since the firm is not distinct from its partners for this purpose. The original penalty on the firm was retained for past parallel invoices, while enhanced penalties and all partner penalties were removed.
Declared export transaction value cannot be rejected merely on parallel or pro-forma invoices unrelated to the disputed consignment. Rejection requires contemporaneous prices of identical goods, market inquiry, or cogent evidence of manipulation such as financial flow-back from the foreign buyer. As no such evidence established overvaluation, the declared value was accepted and redemption fine was set aside because the goods had already been exported. Penalties on both a partnership firm and its partner for the same infraction amount to impermissible double punishment, since the firm is not distinct from its partners for this purpose. The original penalty on the firm was retained for past parallel invoices, while enhanced penalties and all partner penalties were removed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
