Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - The CESTAT held that the appellant was responsible for the actions of their employee, as per Regulation 13(12) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Despite the appellant's claim of ignorance, the CESTAT found that they failed to exercise proper supervision over their employees and were therefore liable for the violations. - The Tribunal found that the appellant had violated several regulations, including failing to advise the client to comply with regulations, exercising due diligence, and verifying the correctness of import-export codes. The court upheld the decision of the Commissioner to revoke the appellant's license and impose penalties.
Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - The CESTAT held that the appellant was responsible for the actions of their employee, as per Regulation 13(12) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Despite the appellant's claim of ignorance, the CESTAT found that they failed to exercise proper supervision over their employees and were therefore liable for the violations. - The Tribunal found that the appellant had violated several regulations, including failing to advise the client to comply with regulations, exercising due diligence, and verifying the correctness of import-export codes. The court upheld the decision of the Commissioner to revoke the appellant's license and impose penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
