Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Post-search scrutiny assessment remains available where original assessment limitation is unexpired, permitting timely completion under regular assess...
The appeal challenges the attachment order of gold and silver articles from lockers, questioning the identification of beneficial locker holders under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. The court held that the conduct of the parties, particularly the Safe Vault Private Limited (SVPL), which failed to disclose the true ownership and delayed changing the name despite requests, speaks for itself. The SVPL's excuse of a bona fide mistake was unacceptable, and they were equally responsible for the benami transaction by not adhering to KYC norms. The appellant failed to disclose the source of acquisition of gold and silver, and the SVPL and appellant were hand in glove to mislead the respondent. The court found no violation of Section 24(1) of the Act, as notice was given to Shiv Daga, and the appellant had ample opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal challenges the attachment order of gold and silver articles from lockers, questioning the identification of beneficial locker holders under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. The court held that the conduct of the parties, particularly the Safe Vault Private Limited (SVPL), which failed to disclose the true ownership and delayed changing the name despite requests, speaks for itself. The SVPL's excuse of a bona fide mistake was unacceptable, and they were equally responsible for the benami transaction by not adhering to KYC norms. The appellant failed to disclose the source of acquisition of gold and silver, and the SVPL and appellant were hand in glove to mislead the respondent. The court found no violation of Section 24(1) of the Act, as notice was given to Shiv Daga, and the appellant had ample opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
