Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The Tribunal set aside the order of the licensing authority that revoked and forfeited the security deposit of a Customs Broker. The licensing authority alleged breach of regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(f) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. However, the Tribunal found that the substantial delay between the offence report in May 2022 and the final determination in January 2024 violated the timelines prescribed in Regulation 17 of the said Regulations. The licensing authority's attempt to justify the delay by citing transfer of officers was rejected, as the authority is responsible for efficient discharge of statutory and administrative roles. The Tribunal held that the mandatory stipulations in Regulation 17 were treated as directory without adhering to the Bombay High Court's decision in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. case, rendering the proceedings invalid at the threshold.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the licensing authority that revoked and forfeited the security deposit of a Customs Broker. The licensing authority alleged breach of regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(f) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. However, the Tribunal found that the substantial delay between the offence report in May 2022 and the final determination in January 2024 violated the timelines prescribed in Regulation 17 of the said Regulations. The licensing authority's attempt to justify the delay by citing transfer of officers was rejected, as the authority is responsible for efficient discharge of statutory and administrative roles. The Tribunal held that the mandatory stipulations in Regulation 17 were treated as directory without adhering to the Bombay High Court's decision in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. case, rendering the proceedings invalid at the threshold.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.