Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Condonation of delay in customs appeals requires a bona fide, satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. Although "sufficient cause" receives a liberal, justice-oriented construction, that approach does not excuse gross negligence, lack of diligence or prolonged inaction. Participation through counsel, communication of the adjudication order to counsel, departmental efforts to serve the order, and failure to enquire about the outcome for nearly three years may support refusal of condonation; later receipt of an order copy does not explain earlier inaction. Under the Customs Act, High Court review does not permit reappreciation of such factual findings absent perversity, disregard of material evidence or legal error.
Condonation of delay in customs appeals requires a bona fide, satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. Although "sufficient cause" receives a liberal, justice-oriented construction, that approach does not excuse gross negligence, lack of diligence or prolonged inaction. Participation through counsel, communication of the adjudication order to counsel, departmental efforts to serve the order, and failure to enquire about the outcome for nearly three years may support refusal of condonation; later receipt of an order copy does not explain earlier inaction. Under the Customs Act, High Court review does not permit reappreciation of such factual findings absent perversity, disregard of material evidence or legal error.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.