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...
Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert opinion on origin, and documents showing purchase from a local store. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order cannot be treated as perverse, as it was not arrived at without evidence or reasons, thus answering the substantial question of law framed regarding perversity against the appellant.
Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert opinion on origin, and documents showing purchase from a local store. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order cannot be treated as perverse, as it was not arrived at without evidence or reasons, thus answering the substantial question of law framed regarding perversity against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
