Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The High Court held that the petitioner, a Director in the Government of Meghalaya's Department of Soil, who claimed exemption from income tax u/s 10(26) as a member of a scheduled tribe, should avail the structured remedy provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that as a writ court, it should not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon highly disputed facts involving voluminous evidence. The petitioner had filed an application for revision u/s 264 for the assessment year 2014-15, which she allegedly withdrew on June 9, 2022. The court set aside the alleged withdrawal and directed the income tax authorities to treat the Section 264 application as pending, hear the petitioner, respondent No. 9, and other interested parties, and dispose of the application by a reasoned order within three months. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for interim orders pending the Section 264 proceedings.
The High Court held that the petitioner, a Director in the Government of Meghalaya's Department of Soil, who claimed exemption from income tax u/s 10(26) as a member of a scheduled tribe, should avail the structured remedy provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that as a writ court, it should not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon highly disputed facts involving voluminous evidence. The petitioner had filed an application for revision u/s 264 for the assessment year 2014-15, which she allegedly withdrew on June 9, 2022. The court set aside the alleged withdrawal and directed the income tax authorities to treat the Section 264 application as pending, hear the petitioner, respondent No. 9, and other interested parties, and dispose of the application by a reasoned order within three months. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for interim orders pending the Section 264 proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
