Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
