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...
ADG, DRI was held competent to extend the time for issuance of SCN under s.110(2) of the Customs Act because relevant notifications appointed ADG, DRI as Commissioner of Customs with all-India territorial jurisdiction; however, the extension order was quasi-judicial and, being non-speaking and unsupported by substantiated reasons (mere reference to the pandemic without showing necessity or post-extension investigation), it was found unsustainable. Non-mention of DIN did not, by itself, vitiate the extension order, as s.110 contains no express nullifying provision despite CBIC circulars. The customs broker and its director were not proved to be importer/beneficial owner or forgers; penalties under ss.112, 114A and 114AA were set aside and s.117 penalty reduced. Mis-declared goods violating Plant Quarantine norms were held liable to confiscation. - CESTAT
ADG, DRI was held competent to extend the time for issuance of SCN under s.110(2) of the Customs Act because relevant notifications appointed ADG, DRI as Commissioner of Customs with all-India territorial jurisdiction; however, the extension order was quasi-judicial and, being non-speaking and unsupported by substantiated reasons (mere reference to the pandemic without showing necessity or post-extension investigation), it was found unsustainable. Non-mention of DIN did not, by itself, vitiate the extension order, as s.110 contains no express nullifying provision despite CBIC circulars. The customs broker and its director were not proved to be importer/beneficial owner or forgers; penalties under ss.112, 114A and 114AA were set aside and s.117 penalty reduced. Mis-declared goods violating Plant Quarantine norms were held liable to confiscation. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
