Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The case involved a penalty u/s 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of export goods leading to undue duty drawback benefit. The issue was the admissibility of statements u/s 138B and WhatsApp messages u/s 138C as evidence. The Appellate Tribunal held that statements were inadmissible as witnesses were not examined or offered for cross-examination, violating legal practices. Similarly, WhatsApp messages lacked specific mention of appellant's involvement and were not obtained following the procedure u/s 138C. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 25 Lakh.
The case involved a penalty u/s 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of export goods leading to undue duty drawback benefit. The issue was the admissibility of statements u/s 138B and WhatsApp messages u/s 138C as evidence. The Appellate Tribunal held that statements were inadmissible as witnesses were not examined or offered for cross-examination, violating legal practices. Similarly, WhatsApp messages lacked specific mention of appellant's involvement and were not obtained following the procedure u/s 138C. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 25 Lakh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
