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 respondents took an excessively narrow view by refusing relief to the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act). The VSV Act aims to resolve disputes pending at various appellate stages on the prescribed date, concerning challenges instituted by the assessee against adverse findings or decisions in the original assessment order. The statute defines "disputed tax liability" and "tax arrears," indicating that the settlement should be confined to the contested part of the assessment. Imposing a liability exceeding the disputed matter would be unjust. Once the Assessing Officer granted carry forward and set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation, denying the same to the declarant would be improper. The Designated Authority erred by not rectifying the mistake in Form 3, which would deprive the petitioner of asserting the claim. The High Court quashed the impugned order, allowing the writ petition.
The High Court held that the respondents took an excessively narrow view by refusing relief to the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act). The VSV Act aims to resolve disputes pending at various appellate stages on the prescribed date, concerning challenges instituted by the assessee against adverse findings or decisions in the original assessment order. The statute defines "disputed tax liability" and "tax arrears," indicating that the settlement should be confined to the contested part of the assessment. Imposing a liability exceeding the disputed matter would be unjust. Once the Assessing Officer granted carry forward and set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation, denying the same to the declarant would be improper. The Designated Authority erred by not rectifying the mistake in Form 3, which would deprive the petitioner of asserting the claim. The High Court quashed the impugned order, allowing the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
