Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The HC allowed the appeal in part: it affirmed the CESTAT's decision to set aside revocation of the authorised courier's registration as disproportionate given acceptance and release of the goods, but set aside the CESTAT's reduction of penalties. The HC held penalties under Regulation 14 and s.117 operate independently and restored the original penalty(s) of Rs.50,000 as imposed by Revenue, finding the CESTAT erred in reducing and/or setting aside those penalties despite upholding non-revocation. Consequently, the revocation remains quashed, but the respondent (authorised courier) must pay the restored penalties.
The HC allowed the appeal in part: it affirmed the CESTAT's decision to set aside revocation of the authorised courier's registration as disproportionate given acceptance and release of the goods, but set aside the CESTAT's reduction of penalties. The HC held penalties under Regulation 14 and s.117 operate independently and restored the original penalty(s) of Rs.50,000 as imposed by Revenue, finding the CESTAT erred in reducing and/or setting aside those penalties despite upholding non-revocation. Consequently, the revocation remains quashed, but the respondent (authorised courier) must pay the restored penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
