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 penalty order u/s 271D was barred by limitation as the order imposing penalty was required to be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the reference from the Assessing Officer was received by the competent authority. Since the reference was received on 18.01.2023, the penalty order should have been passed by 31.07.2023. However, the competent authority delayed the proceedings by asking for further documents after almost one year, which was beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty order was allowed by the High Court.
The High Court held that the penalty order u/s 271D was barred by limitation as the order imposing penalty was required to be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the reference from the Assessing Officer was received by the competent authority. Since the reference was received on 18.01.2023, the penalty order should have been passed by 31.07.2023. However, the competent authority delayed the proceedings by asking for further documents after almost one year, which was beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty order was allowed by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
