Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
