Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The High Court quashed the seizure order dated 14.08.2020, holding that it violated Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure memo along with the first petitioner. The petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act, as the seizure memo did not comply with Section 110 by not providing reasons. The contents of the Panchnama could not be read into the seizure memo as per the Notification dated 08.02.2017. The seizing officer failed to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo as required u/s 110(1A), (1B), (1C) of the Customs Act. The impugned seizure memo was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
The High Court quashed the seizure order dated 14.08.2020, holding that it violated Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure memo along with the first petitioner. The petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act, as the seizure memo did not comply with Section 110 by not providing reasons. The contents of the Panchnama could not be read into the seizure memo as per the Notification dated 08.02.2017. The seizing officer failed to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo as required u/s 110(1A), (1B), (1C) of the Customs Act. The impugned seizure memo was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
