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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the release of seized goods upon deposit of the valuation amount. The court found that the respondent failed to provide notice of extension before the six-month seizure period expired, violating Section 67(7) of the CGST Act. The court rejected the respondent's claim of "sufficient cause" based on documents not in the public domain, which denied the petitioner opportunity to respond. The HC emphasized that delayed valuation despite the assessee's cooperation cannot constitute "sufficient cause" for extending seizure. The court clarified that confiscation under Section 130 cannot be equated with seizure powers under Section 67, and that affected parties must be shown "sufficient cause" with proper notice and hearing rights.
The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the release of seized goods upon deposit of the valuation amount. The court found that the respondent failed to provide notice of extension before the six-month seizure period expired, violating Section 67(7) of the CGST Act. The court rejected the respondent's claim of "sufficient cause" based on documents not in the public domain, which denied the petitioner opportunity to respond. The HC emphasized that delayed valuation despite the assessee's cooperation cannot constitute "sufficient cause" for extending seizure. The court clarified that confiscation under Section 130 cannot be equated with seizure powers under Section 67, and that affected parties must be shown "sufficient cause" with proper notice and hearing rights.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
