Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
HC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering release of seized gold jewelry within 7 days. The court determined that Baggage Rules 2016 provision regarding items "carried on the person" was ultra vires to Section 79 of Customs Act 1962, as the Act only authorizes rules for articles in baggage, not worn items. The confiscation order was invalidated due to procedural defects: no show cause notice was issued, inadequate hearing opportunities were provided to the Sri Lankan petitioner, and the seizure was based on contradictory evidence regarding how the jewelry was carried. The court emphasized that jewelry worn by passengers falls outside Baggage Rules 2016 scope unless specifically concealed, requiring Section 101 Customs Act proceedings.
HC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering release of seized gold jewelry within 7 days. The court determined that Baggage Rules 2016 provision regarding items "carried on the person" was ultra vires to Section 79 of Customs Act 1962, as the Act only authorizes rules for articles in baggage, not worn items. The confiscation order was invalidated due to procedural defects: no show cause notice was issued, inadequate hearing opportunities were provided to the Sri Lankan petitioner, and the seizure was based on contradictory evidence regarding how the jewelry was carried. The court emphasized that jewelry worn by passengers falls outside Baggage Rules 2016 scope unless specifically concealed, requiring Section 101 Customs Act proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
