Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3581 to 3600 of 96407 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - smuggling - Gold Bars - the statements of the co-noticee cannot be adopted as a legal evidence to penalize the accused unless the same are corroborated with material particulars by independent evidence. The statement of co-accused cannot be used against the appellant, particularly when appellant has denied his involvement in respect of the goods in question - AT
Penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - smuggling - Gold Bars - the statements of the co-noticee cannot be adopted as a legal evidence to penalize the accused unless the same are corroborated with material particulars by independent evidence. The statement of co-accused cannot be used against the appellant, particularly when appellant has denied his involvement in respect of the goods in question - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
