Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The AT dismissed the appeals challenging denial of cross-examination requests for officers who recorded statements under the Customs Act and FERA. The tribunal determined that appellants failed to demonstrate how prejudice was caused by denial of cross-examination or establish reasonable grounds that coercion occurred during statement recording. The AT noted it was unlikely departmental officers would admit to coercive tactics during cross-examination. The tribunal observed that appellants had not examined the merits of the 61 relied-upon documents furnished per the Special Director's directions, instead raising cross-examination issues without demonstrating necessity. The tribunal found support in the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and declined to intervene with the interlocutory orders.
The AT dismissed the appeals challenging denial of cross-examination requests for officers who recorded statements under the Customs Act and FERA. The tribunal determined that appellants failed to demonstrate how prejudice was caused by denial of cross-examination or establish reasonable grounds that coercion occurred during statement recording. The AT noted it was unlikely departmental officers would admit to coercive tactics during cross-examination. The tribunal observed that appellants had not examined the merits of the 61 relied-upon documents furnished per the Special Director's directions, instead raising cross-examination issues without demonstrating necessity. The tribunal found support in the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and declined to intervene with the interlocutory orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
