Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Assessment u/s 153A - Authorisation and assessment in case of search or requisition - Constitutional validity of Section 292CC - As however a fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT cannot consider the “reason to believe” or “reason to suspect” on merit, but was only for limited purpose. In view of the above, even if the explanations to the provisions referred to above have been added by the Finance Act, 2017, it cannot be said to be offending Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India and otherwise retrospectivity of the amendment is permissible unless it remains otherwise unconstitutional. Thus, we summarily reject the challenge to the addition of Explanations to Sections 132(1), 132(1A) and 132A(1) of the Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 2017 and hold it to be constitutionally valid. - HC
Assessment u/s 153A - Authorisation and assessment in case of search or requisition - Constitutional validity of Section 292CC - As however a fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT cannot consider the “reason to believe” or “reason to suspect” on merit, but was only for limited purpose. In view of the above, even if the explanations to the provisions referred to above have been added by the Finance Act, 2017, it cannot be said to be offending Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India and otherwise retrospectivity of the amendment is permissible unless it remains otherwise unconstitutional. Thus, we summarily reject the challenge to the addition of Explanations to Sections 132(1), 132(1A) and 132A(1) of the Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 2017 and hold it to be constitutionally valid. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
