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...
The HC determined that issuing two show cause notices (SCNs) under different subsections of Section 28 for identical factual matrices is impermissible. The impugned SCN under Section 28(4) was issued just six weeks after a Section 28(1) notice concerning similar goods with similar alleged "mis-declaration," constituting an improper change of opinion. The court found the second notice failed to substantiate allegations of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts required under Section 28(4), containing merely an "incantation" of statutory provisions without supporting substance. Furthermore, the respondent's contention that the impugned notice was a "supplementary notice" was rejected, as the Customs Act contemplates issuance under either Section 28(1) or 28(4), not both. Petition allowed.
The HC determined that issuing two show cause notices (SCNs) under different subsections of Section 28 for identical factual matrices is impermissible. The impugned SCN under Section 28(4) was issued just six weeks after a Section 28(1) notice concerning similar goods with similar alleged "mis-declaration," constituting an improper change of opinion. The court found the second notice failed to substantiate allegations of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts required under Section 28(4), containing merely an "incantation" of statutory provisions without supporting substance. Furthermore, the respondent's contention that the impugned notice was a "supplementary notice" was rejected, as the Customs Act contemplates issuance under either Section 28(1) or 28(4), not both. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
