Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
