Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Constitutional validity of Sections 104, 105, and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the legality of search and seizure operations conducted by the respondents. It examines whether the alleged acts or omissions constitute prohibited goods or evasion of duty exceeding fifty lakh rupees, rendering Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) inapplicable. The court held that while gold is not absolutely prohibited, failure to comply with conditions amounts to prohibited goods u/ss 2(33) and 11 of the Act. The petitioners' alleged acts prima facie constitute prohibited goods, and the offence being cognizable with punishment up to 7 years, Section 155 of Cr.P.C. is inapplicable. Consequently, the court dismissed the stay applications, prima facie finding no grounds to grant a stay at this stage, subject to deciding the constitutional validity of the provisions in the main writ petitions.
Constitutional validity of Sections 104, 105, and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the legality of search and seizure operations conducted by the respondents. It examines whether the alleged acts or omissions constitute prohibited goods or evasion of duty exceeding fifty lakh rupees, rendering Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) inapplicable. The court held that while gold is not absolutely prohibited, failure to comply with conditions amounts to prohibited goods u/ss 2(33) and 11 of the Act. The petitioners' alleged acts prima facie constitute prohibited goods, and the offence being cognizable with punishment up to 7 years, Section 155 of Cr.P.C. is inapplicable. Consequently, the court dismissed the stay applications, prima facie finding no grounds to grant a stay at this stage, subject to deciding the constitutional validity of the provisions in the main writ petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
