Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
The adhoc exemption order did not restrict the use of floodlights solely for World Cup matches; it aimed to uplift the stadium's infrastructure standards. The department erroneously assumed that World Cup matches were non-commercial, while one-day internationals were commercial. The exemption order made no such distinction. The show cause notice lacked factual or legal basis for alleging a violation of condition (ii). Regarding time limitation, the notice did not allege suppression of facts or intention to evade customs duty. The department issued the notice after collecting documents from the appellant, indicating no suppression. With a lapse of over 7 years, the demand was time-barred as the proviso to Section 28(1) was not applicable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The adhoc exemption order did not restrict the use of floodlights solely for World Cup matches; it aimed to uplift the stadium's infrastructure standards. The department erroneously assumed that World Cup matches were non-commercial, while one-day internationals were commercial. The exemption order made no such distinction. The show cause notice lacked factual or legal basis for alleging a violation of condition (ii). Regarding time limitation, the notice did not allege suppression of facts or intention to evade customs duty. The department issued the notice after collecting documents from the appellant, indicating no suppression. With a lapse of over 7 years, the demand was time-barred as the proviso to Section 28(1) was not applicable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
