Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
The dominant issue was whether a stay application under s. 220(6) could be rejected on the premise that it was not entertainable without a 20% pre-deposit of the outstanding demand. The court held that the assessing authority must exercise discretion under s. 220(6) on settled principles, including assessment of "undue hardship," and cannot treat a 20% deposit as a mandatory precondition for considering stay. Since the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of lack of power absent pre-deposit, the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing jurisprudence. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a stay application under s. 220(6) could be rejected on the premise that it was not entertainable without a 20% pre-deposit of the outstanding demand. The court held that the assessing authority must exercise discretion under s. 220(6) on settled principles, including assessment of "undue hardship," and cannot treat a 20% deposit as a mandatory precondition for considering stay. Since the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of lack of power absent pre-deposit, the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing jurisprudence. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
