Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
HC found detention of vehicle and goods under Section 129 was improper. Physical verification confirmed correct quantity and weight of goods against three invoices, with no discrepancy in broad product classifications. Inspecting authority exceeded scope by scrutinizing detailed specifications (pipe size, shutter, TMT Bar dimensions) not required in invoices. While product classification issues could be addressed in separate adjudication proceedings, current detention was unwarranted as there was no evidence of tax evasion or fact suppression. Court ordered release of vehicle and goods within four days of order service. Matter disposed with directive to authorities to comply with release order.
HC found detention of vehicle and goods under Section 129 was improper. Physical verification confirmed correct quantity and weight of goods against three invoices, with no discrepancy in broad product classifications. Inspecting authority exceeded scope by scrutinizing detailed specifications (pipe size, shutter, TMT Bar dimensions) not required in invoices. While product classification issues could be addressed in separate adjudication proceedings, current detention was unwarranted as there was no evidence of tax evasion or fact suppression. Court ordered release of vehicle and goods within four days of order service. Matter disposed with directive to authorities to comply with release order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.