Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The court examined the interpretation of "reasons to believe" u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding seizure of goods. A previous case had left the interpretation open for examination in other cases. A circular stipulated that at the time of seizure, a Panchnama should clearly mention the reasons to believe the goods are liable for confiscation. There was a dispute over whether the driver produced relevant documents at the time of seizure. The petitioner admitted that documents were produced later at the customs office, implying the driver did not carry them initially. An e-way bill generated shortly before the seizure showed alleged discrepancies. However, under Article 226, the court cannot examine disputed issues. The petitioner failed to make out a case, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
The court examined the interpretation of "reasons to believe" u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding seizure of goods. A previous case had left the interpretation open for examination in other cases. A circular stipulated that at the time of seizure, a Panchnama should clearly mention the reasons to believe the goods are liable for confiscation. There was a dispute over whether the driver produced relevant documents at the time of seizure. The petitioner admitted that documents were produced later at the customs office, implying the driver did not carry them initially. An e-way bill generated shortly before the seizure showed alleged discrepancies. However, under Article 226, the court cannot examine disputed issues. The petitioner failed to make out a case, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
