Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC examined whether confiscation of funds in NRE/SB accounts used in contravention of FERA, 1973, is mandatory or discretionary under Section 63. HC held that, as Section 63 uses the term "may" and requires the authority to have "reason to believe" that the amounts are related to the proved breach, confiscation is discretionary and cannot be automatic or imposed as a matter of course. In the present case, the confiscation order was passed without independent application of mind. AT had rightly considered the nature of violations and set aside the routine confiscation. HC found no perversity in AT's approach and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.
HC examined whether confiscation of funds in NRE/SB accounts used in contravention of FERA, 1973, is mandatory or discretionary under Section 63. HC held that, as Section 63 uses the term "may" and requires the authority to have "reason to believe" that the amounts are related to the proved breach, confiscation is discretionary and cannot be automatic or imposed as a matter of course. In the present case, the confiscation order was passed without independent application of mind. AT had rightly considered the nature of violations and set aside the routine confiscation. HC found no perversity in AT's approach and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
