Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The High Court held that the Central Board of Direct Tax's Compounding Guidelines dated 16 September 2022, which rejected the application for compounding u/s 279(2) on the basis of a time frame, were invalid. Section 279(2) does not prescribe any timelines for filing an application for compounding, and the Guidelines exceeded the statutory provision by imposing a condition not contemplated by the Act. The Court set aside the order rejecting the compounding application and remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) for fresh consideration, bearing in mind the observations made by the Court.
The High Court held that the Central Board of Direct Tax's Compounding Guidelines dated 16 September 2022, which rejected the application for compounding u/s 279(2) on the basis of a time frame, were invalid. Section 279(2) does not prescribe any timelines for filing an application for compounding, and the Guidelines exceeded the statutory provision by imposing a condition not contemplated by the Act. The Court set aside the order rejecting the compounding application and remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) for fresh consideration, bearing in mind the observations made by the Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
