Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Certain Export Oriented Units (EOUs) fraudulently obtained Advance Licences/Advance Release Orders (AROs) without actual manufacture or removal of excisable goods. They falsified records to show clearance of goods against these licences/AROs to fulfill export obligations, despite no physical movement of goods. The appellant, acting as an agent for purchase and sale of these licences/AROs, was not a party to the fraud committed by EOUs. Without knowledge of such fraud, the appellant cannot be penalized. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under relevant rules and acts for lack of culpable involvement in the fraudulent activities of EOUs.
Certain Export Oriented Units (EOUs) fraudulently obtained Advance Licences/Advance Release Orders (AROs) without actual manufacture or removal of excisable goods. They falsified records to show clearance of goods against these licences/AROs to fulfill export obligations, despite no physical movement of goods. The appellant, acting as an agent for purchase and sale of these licences/AROs, was not a party to the fraud committed by EOUs. Without knowledge of such fraud, the appellant cannot be penalized. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under relevant rules and acts for lack of culpable involvement in the fraudulent activities of EOUs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
