Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, setting aside the tribunal's order that had permitted cancellation of the self-assessed bill of entry for home consumption. It was held that under the Customs Act, once assessment under Section 68(b) is complete, the importer must pay duty and interest if goods remain beyond 90 days in the warehouse, and there is no provision for withdrawal or cancellation of the bill of entry except where title to goods is relinquished. The Court found the tribunal erred in not considering whether the proper officer could act on the cancellation request dated 08.10.2021 and misapplied relevant legal principles, including Section 46(5). The ruling affirmed that the request for cancellation was not maintainable, and the importer is obligated to clear goods on payment of duty and interest. Substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the revenue.
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, setting aside the tribunal's order that had permitted cancellation of the self-assessed bill of entry for home consumption. It was held that under the Customs Act, once assessment under Section 68(b) is complete, the importer must pay duty and interest if goods remain beyond 90 days in the warehouse, and there is no provision for withdrawal or cancellation of the bill of entry except where title to goods is relinquished. The Court found the tribunal erred in not considering whether the proper officer could act on the cancellation request dated 08.10.2021 and misapplied relevant legal principles, including Section 46(5). The ruling affirmed that the request for cancellation was not maintainable, and the importer is obligated to clear goods on payment of duty and interest. Substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
