Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
DRI officers were appointed as officers of customs through notifications issued by the Department of Revenue, empowering them to issue show cause notices u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court's decision in Canon India erroneously held that DRI officers lacked jurisdiction, failing to consider Sections 2(34) and 5 of the Act which assign functions to proper officers. The reliance on Sayed Ali was misplaced as it dealt with different circumstances. Section 28(11) does not lead to chaos, as feared in Mangali Impex, due to the policy of excluding other officers once a notice is issued. Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022, validating notices u/s 28, is constitutional. The Court provided directions for pending cases challenging jurisdiction, allowing appeals and remanding matters for adjudication on merits by proper officers u/s 28. The Canon India ruling on limitation remains undisturbed.
DRI officers were appointed as officers of customs through notifications issued by the Department of Revenue, empowering them to issue show cause notices u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court's decision in Canon India erroneously held that DRI officers lacked jurisdiction, failing to consider Sections 2(34) and 5 of the Act which assign functions to proper officers. The reliance on Sayed Ali was misplaced as it dealt with different circumstances. Section 28(11) does not lead to chaos, as feared in Mangali Impex, due to the policy of excluding other officers once a notice is issued. Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022, validating notices u/s 28, is constitutional. The Court provided directions for pending cases challenging jurisdiction, allowing appeals and remanding matters for adjudication on merits by proper officers u/s 28. The Canon India ruling on limitation remains undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
