Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
