Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The case pertains to the recovery of customs duty in the form of IGST forgone during imports under the advance authorization scheme from October 2017 to November 2018. The appellant had fulfilled the pre-import condition in most cases, and in some cases, the bill of entry was re-assessed, and the appellant paid the IGST, which they did not contest as they were eligible for ITC under GST. The demand for IGST, along with interest, fine, and penalties, is deemed unsustainable as there was no mala fide on the appellant's part, and the penalty corresponding to the duty paid, which is not in contest, is also not sustainable on the ground of revenue neutrality. The issue involved the interpretation of the exemption notification on advance authorization, and the suppression of facts cannot be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the extended period for demand is prima facie not invokable, and the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case on the time bar. The impugned order is unsustainable, and the appeal is allowed.
The case pertains to the recovery of customs duty in the form of IGST forgone during imports under the advance authorization scheme from October 2017 to November 2018. The appellant had fulfilled the pre-import condition in most cases, and in some cases, the bill of entry was re-assessed, and the appellant paid the IGST, which they did not contest as they were eligible for ITC under GST. The demand for IGST, along with interest, fine, and penalties, is deemed unsustainable as there was no mala fide on the appellant's part, and the penalty corresponding to the duty paid, which is not in contest, is also not sustainable on the ground of revenue neutrality. The issue involved the interpretation of the exemption notification on advance authorization, and the suppression of facts cannot be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the extended period for demand is prima facie not invokable, and the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case on the time bar. The impugned order is unsustainable, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
