Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The case pertains to the confiscation of foreign marked gold bars by customs authorities. The appellant claimed the gold was procured from a legitimate source and was being sent as a legitimate business transaction. However, no documentary evidence was produced by the courier company or the appellant's representative at the time of seizure. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's defense in a cryptic manner without adequately considering the claim of legitimate procurement and transaction. The orders were passed without following principles of natural justice and without providing detailed reasons for rejecting the appellant's defense. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to decide by way of a speaking order within three months, subject to the appellant providing necessary documents and appearing for a personal hearing.
The case pertains to the confiscation of foreign marked gold bars by customs authorities. The appellant claimed the gold was procured from a legitimate source and was being sent as a legitimate business transaction. However, no documentary evidence was produced by the courier company or the appellant's representative at the time of seizure. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's defense in a cryptic manner without adequately considering the claim of legitimate procurement and transaction. The orders were passed without following principles of natural justice and without providing detailed reasons for rejecting the appellant's defense. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to decide by way of a speaking order within three months, subject to the appellant providing necessary documents and appearing for a personal hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
