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...
HC held that both appellants must be given opportunity to cross-examine witness Mr. B under Section 138(B) of Customs Act, addressing discriminatory treatment by CESTAT which upheld penalties against one appellant while adopting opposite approach for similarly situated co-appellant. While cross-examination is not an unfettered right in all customs proceedings, principles of natural justice require it when witness statements form basis of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A. Court directed single-day cross-examination with possibility of one extension, after which authority shall adjudicate matter per law. Court emphasized that information from statutory authorities doesn't automatically warrant cross-examination but circumstances of this case necessitated equal treatment of both appellants regarding examination rights.
HC held that both appellants must be given opportunity to cross-examine witness Mr. B under Section 138(B) of Customs Act, addressing discriminatory treatment by CESTAT which upheld penalties against one appellant while adopting opposite approach for similarly situated co-appellant. While cross-examination is not an unfettered right in all customs proceedings, principles of natural justice require it when witness statements form basis of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A. Court directed single-day cross-examination with possibility of one extension, after which authority shall adjudicate matter per law. Court emphasized that information from statutory authorities doesn't automatically warrant cross-examination but circumstances of this case necessitated equal treatment of both appellants regarding examination rights.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
