Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
HC held that receiving Rs. 1.5 crore in cash violating Section 269ST of Income Tax Act does not render the underlying collaboration agreement void. While Section 271DA imposes penalty on cash recipients, it only prescribes fiscal penalties without invalidating the transaction. The defendant, being solely culpable as recipient, cannot invoke statutory violation to escape liability. Following the principle established that 'in pari delicto' applies only when both parties share equal responsibility for illegality, the defendant cannot retain money under guise of statutory violation when penal liability rests solely with them. The determination of tax violations falls under Income Tax Authorities' jurisdiction per Section 271D, and absent proven tax evasion intent, no statutory bar prevents civil recovery proceedings. Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC rejected.
HC held that receiving Rs. 1.5 crore in cash violating Section 269ST of Income Tax Act does not render the underlying collaboration agreement void. While Section 271DA imposes penalty on cash recipients, it only prescribes fiscal penalties without invalidating the transaction. The defendant, being solely culpable as recipient, cannot invoke statutory violation to escape liability. Following the principle established that 'in pari delicto' applies only when both parties share equal responsibility for illegality, the defendant cannot retain money under guise of statutory violation when penal liability rests solely with them. The determination of tax violations falls under Income Tax Authorities' jurisdiction per Section 271D, and absent proven tax evasion intent, no statutory bar prevents civil recovery proceedings. Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
