Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
The HC held that the detention of the petitioner's two gold bangles by Customs was unlawful due to the absence of a show cause notice and denial of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The court rejected reliance on a pre-printed waiver for these procedural safeguards. The jewellery, worn as personal effects during a religious pilgrimage, fell within exemptions under the relevant customs rules. Since the mandatory show cause notice was not issued within the prescribed one-year period, the continued seizure was impermissible. Consequently, the court set aside the detention order and directed the immediate release of the jewellery to the petitioner within two weeks. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC held that the detention of the petitioner's two gold bangles by Customs was unlawful due to the absence of a show cause notice and denial of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The court rejected reliance on a pre-printed waiver for these procedural safeguards. The jewellery, worn as personal effects during a religious pilgrimage, fell within exemptions under the relevant customs rules. Since the mandatory show cause notice was not issued within the prescribed one-year period, the continued seizure was impermissible. Consequently, the court set aside the detention order and directed the immediate release of the jewellery to the petitioner within two weeks. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
