Reassessment sanction under extended limitation required approval from the competent specified authority, invalidating proceedings approved by an inco...
Internal CUP benchmarking for fixed-rate Masala Bonds prevails over floating external comparables, eliminating the related transfer-pricing adjustment...
Jurisdictional validity of revision notices: incorrect official capacity and mere change of opinion invalidate revision of property income assessments...
Bogus-purchase additions are limited to embedded profit where corresponding sales are accepted, while accommodation-entry information can support reas...
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.