Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Validity of reassessment proceedings against non-existent entities or amalgamating companies. The key points are: 1) Initiating or continuing proceedings against a dissolved company or one that no longer exists in law would invalidate the proceedings. 2) Once a Scheme of Arrangement is approved, the transferor companies are dissolved by operation of law, and proceedings drawn in their name would be a nullity. 3) Sections 159 and 170 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. 4) Invoking Section 154 for rectification to overcome a jurisdictional error is not permissible. 5) Issuing notices u/s 142(1) bearing the PAN of the erstwhile entity, though a mistake, is not a fundamental flaw or incurable illegality. 6) Failure to apprise the authorities about the approved Scheme of Arrangement renders the proceedings valid. 7) The High Court dismissed petitions where disclosures about the Scheme were not made during assessment proceedings.
Validity of reassessment proceedings against non-existent entities or amalgamating companies. The key points are: 1) Initiating or continuing proceedings against a dissolved company or one that no longer exists in law would invalidate the proceedings. 2) Once a Scheme of Arrangement is approved, the transferor companies are dissolved by operation of law, and proceedings drawn in their name would be a nullity. 3) Sections 159 and 170 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. 4) Invoking Section 154 for rectification to overcome a jurisdictional error is not permissible. 5) Issuing notices u/s 142(1) bearing the PAN of the erstwhile entity, though a mistake, is not a fundamental flaw or incurable illegality. 6) Failure to apprise the authorities about the approved Scheme of Arrangement renders the proceedings valid. 7) The High Court dismissed petitions where disclosures about the Scheme were not made during assessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
