Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
The AT dismissed the appeal and confirmed the attachment order made under s.24(4)(a)(i) of the Benami Transactions law, holding the statute applicable to the 2012 transaction notwithstanding the 2016 amendment. The Appellant failed to demonstrate lawful sources for sudden cash accumulation used to purchase the auctioned plot, including cash deposits and a demand draft funded by cash, and had not filed income/wealth tax returns. The AT found the Appellant offered no cogent, corroborated explanation or evidence before the Adjudicating Authority, and agreed the beneficial owner remained unidentified; consequently the attachment was properly sustained and the Reference allowed, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
The AT dismissed the appeal and confirmed the attachment order made under s.24(4)(a)(i) of the Benami Transactions law, holding the statute applicable to the 2012 transaction notwithstanding the 2016 amendment. The Appellant failed to demonstrate lawful sources for sudden cash accumulation used to purchase the auctioned plot, including cash deposits and a demand draft funded by cash, and had not filed income/wealth tax returns. The AT found the Appellant offered no cogent, corroborated explanation or evidence before the Adjudicating Authority, and agreed the beneficial owner remained unidentified; consequently the attachment was properly sustained and the Reference allowed, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
