Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the seizure and continued retention of 7,738.80 gms of gold jewellery were ultra vires and contrary to law. It found the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 unreliable and inconsistent with contemporaneous records, which clearly showed that the jewellery had already been taken into custody on 12.05.2024 and valued on 17.05.2024. HC rejected the revenue's affidavit explanation as contrary to the record and accepted the petitioners' evidence that the jewellery constituted stock-in-trade of Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, HC quashed the impugned order and the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 and directed the respondents to release the seized gold jewellery to Petitioner No. 1 within two weeks of uploading of the order.
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the seizure and continued retention of 7,738.80 gms of gold jewellery were ultra vires and contrary to law. It found the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 unreliable and inconsistent with contemporaneous records, which clearly showed that the jewellery had already been taken into custody on 12.05.2024 and valued on 17.05.2024. HC rejected the revenue's affidavit explanation as contrary to the record and accepted the petitioners' evidence that the jewellery constituted stock-in-trade of Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, HC quashed the impugned order and the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 and directed the respondents to release the seized gold jewellery to Petitioner No. 1 within two weeks of uploading of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
