Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
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...
Allegation for conducting market inquiry improperly by the Inspector (Cutoms) (now deceased) - No question arises of abeting him at a stage later than the commission of said fraudulent exports. There is no evidence produced by the department which may prove that the appellant ever instigated or conspired or intentionally aided the exporter to fraudulently export the hand woven carpets to traders in different countries and to take as high as 12 Crores of drawback in DAPL and higher drawback in other companies as well. There is no evidence that appellant has been the beneficiary of these amounts or part thereof. - AT
Allegation for conducting market inquiry improperly by the Inspector (Cutoms) (now deceased) - No question arises of abeting him at a stage later than the commission of said fraudulent exports. There is no evidence produced by the department which may prove that the appellant ever instigated or conspired or intentionally aided the exporter to fraudulently export the hand woven carpets to traders in different countries and to take as high as 12 Crores of drawback in DAPL and higher drawback in other companies as well. There is no evidence that appellant has been the beneficiary of these amounts or part thereof. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.