Charitable institution cannot lose exemption merely because some activities incidentally benefit a religious community; retrospective registration can...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2661 to 2680 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was neither the importer nor the owner of the imported car in question under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 respectively. The original importer remained the legal owner as the vehicle was not registered in the appellant's name. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings against the appellant by issuing a show cause notice, seizing, and confiscating the vehicle was unlawful. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgments, show cause notices, and other proceedings against the appellant, and restored the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was neither the importer nor the owner of the imported car in question under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 respectively. The original importer remained the legal owner as the vehicle was not registered in the appellant's name. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings against the appellant by issuing a show cause notice, seizing, and confiscating the vehicle was unlawful. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgments, show cause notices, and other proceedings against the appellant, and restored the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
