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...
Authority under the Customs Act to proceed against the property of a third party - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - The High Court emphasizes that respondent No. 2 cannot question the petitioner’s ownership of the flat, even if it was purchased by her husband. Referring to Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the court states that only the husband could question the petitioner’s ownership, and any such dispute should be resolved in a civil court. - The High Court finds that respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction to issue the communication under the Customs Act. There is no provision allowing customs officials to attach the property of a third party, such as the petitioner, who is not connected to any recovery under the Customs Act.
Authority under the Customs Act to proceed against the property of a third party - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - The High Court emphasizes that respondent No. 2 cannot question the petitioner’s ownership of the flat, even if it was purchased by her husband. Referring to Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the court states that only the husband could question the petitioner’s ownership, and any such dispute should be resolved in a civil court. - The High Court finds that respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction to issue the communication under the Customs Act. There is no provision allowing customs officials to attach the property of a third party, such as the petitioner, who is not connected to any recovery under the Customs Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
