Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court considered a case involving the release of seized goods u/s 110A. The issue was the non-issuance of a show cause notice within the stipulated time due to valuation and duty discrepancies of imported cutting blades. The Court held that a Circular from 2017 was superseded by a 2018 amendment exempting cases with provisional release from the time limit for issuing show cause notices. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. Two conditions were imposed for provisional release: execution of a bond and a bank guarantee. The Court affirmed the bond condition but directed the respondent to provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/- and a bond for Rs. 40,00,000/- to protect revenue interests. Upon compliance with the conditions, the seized goods would be provisionally released within 10 days. The appeal was disposed of, and the application closed.
The High Court considered a case involving the release of seized goods u/s 110A. The issue was the non-issuance of a show cause notice within the stipulated time due to valuation and duty discrepancies of imported cutting blades. The Court held that a Circular from 2017 was superseded by a 2018 amendment exempting cases with provisional release from the time limit for issuing show cause notices. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. Two conditions were imposed for provisional release: execution of a bond and a bank guarantee. The Court affirmed the bond condition but directed the respondent to provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/- and a bond for Rs. 40,00,000/- to protect revenue interests. Upon compliance with the conditions, the seized goods would be provisionally released within 10 days. The appeal was disposed of, and the application closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
