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" ?
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 
