Effective hearing in GST adjudication requires actual opportunity to respond; ineffective service through a former auditor invalidated ex parte procee...
Third-party search material requires special assessment route, rendering general reassessment notices without jurisdiction when it forms the proceedin...
Transfer-pricing adjustments must be confined to international associated-enterprise transactions, while functionally dissimilar comparables remain ex...
Insolvency moratorium bars income-tax revision proceedings against corporate debtors until the moratorium ends, preserving merits for later determinat...
Section 110(2) requires return of seized goods if notice under Section 124(a) is not issued within the stipulated period. Section 124's first proviso, however, permits oral notice and oral representation at the concerned person's request. A statement declining a show-cause notice or personal hearing does not itself establish that oral notice was given; together with the Department's assertion, it creates a factual dispute over whether oral proceedings and their statutory conditions existed. Such disputes, including alleged coercion in recording the statement, are not resolved in writ jurisdiction. The claim for automatic release of seized gold solely for lack of a written notice was rejected, leaving the competent authority to determine the oral proceedings and customs liability.
Section 110(2) requires return of seized goods if notice under Section 124(a) is not issued within the stipulated period. Section 124's first proviso, however, permits oral notice and oral representation at the concerned person's request. A statement declining a show-cause notice or personal hearing does not itself establish that oral notice was given; together with the Department's assertion, it creates a factual dispute over whether oral proceedings and their statutory conditions existed. Such disputes, including alleged coercion in recording the statement, are not resolved in writ jurisdiction. The claim for automatic release of seized gold solely for lack of a written notice was rejected, leaving the competent authority to determine the oral proceedings and customs liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.