Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
CESTAT upheld the customs authority's rejection of the appellant's application for a Private Warehouse Licence under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, interpreting Regulation 3(2)(c) of the PWLR to render ineligible any person on whom penalty under Section 114A has been imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant's construction would make Regulation 3(2)(b) or 3(2)(c) redundant, contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation requiring harmonious construction and effect to every provision. Accepting the Commissioner's reasoning that conviction-based disqualification falls under Regulation 3(2)(b) and penalty-based disqualification under 3(2)(c), CESTAT dismissed the appeal.
CESTAT upheld the customs authority's rejection of the appellant's application for a Private Warehouse Licence under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, interpreting Regulation 3(2)(c) of the PWLR to render ineligible any person on whom penalty under Section 114A has been imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant's construction would make Regulation 3(2)(b) or 3(2)(c) redundant, contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation requiring harmonious construction and effect to every provision. Accepting the Commissioner's reasoning that conviction-based disqualification falls under Regulation 3(2)(b) and penalty-based disqualification under 3(2)(c), CESTAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
