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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the appeals and upheld the Single Judge's decision, holding that the Compounding Authority correctly returned the appellants' compounding applications where the Enforcement Directorate had characterized the contraventions under Section 13(1) read with Section 42 of FEMA, 1999 as serious and involving suspected money laundering. Applying the proviso to Rule 8(2), the court held that once the ED expresses that view the Compounding Authority must remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for adjudication and need not independently reassess seriousness. The appellants' challenge to the return of applications was rejected and the writ petitions were properly dismissed.
The HC dismissed the appeals and upheld the Single Judge's decision, holding that the Compounding Authority correctly returned the appellants' compounding applications where the Enforcement Directorate had characterized the contraventions under Section 13(1) read with Section 42 of FEMA, 1999 as serious and involving suspected money laundering. Applying the proviso to Rule 8(2), the court held that once the ED expresses that view the Compounding Authority must remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for adjudication and need not independently reassess seriousness. The appellants' challenge to the return of applications was rejected and the writ petitions were properly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
