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...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
