Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismissed the writ petition and held it premature and not maintainable, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 107 rather than relief under Article 226. The court recorded that where a proper officer (not below Joint Commissioner) has reasons to believe under Section 67 of suppression or evasion, he may inspect, search and, under Section 69, arrest, and seize documents; thereafter a notice under Section 73 (three-year limitation) or Section 74 (five-year limitation) may be issued. The court refused to examine the correctness of issuance of a Section 74 notice at writ stage, leaving the limitation and merits to the adjudicatory authority; observations of the HC are not to influence the proper officer.
HC dismissed the writ petition and held it premature and not maintainable, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 107 rather than relief under Article 226. The court recorded that where a proper officer (not below Joint Commissioner) has reasons to believe under Section 67 of suppression or evasion, he may inspect, search and, under Section 69, arrest, and seize documents; thereafter a notice under Section 73 (three-year limitation) or Section 74 (five-year limitation) may be issued. The court refused to examine the correctness of issuance of a Section 74 notice at writ stage, leaving the limitation and merits to the adjudicatory authority; observations of the HC are not to influence the proper officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
