Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Attachment and recovery from a company's bank account was challenged on the ground that the demand and adjudication were issued against a distinct juristic entity. The court held that where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were addressed to another company, the petitioner could not be fastened with that entity's dues absent any garnishee relationship or proved liability to pay amounts to the defaulter. It further held that common directorship alone is insufficient to lift the corporate veil for recovery, and such veil-piercing was impermissible on the pleaded facts. Consequently, the impugned recovery/attachment order was quashed and the petition was allowed with directions to appear before the authority. - HC
Attachment and recovery from a company's bank account was challenged on the ground that the demand and adjudication were issued against a distinct juristic entity. The court held that where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were addressed to another company, the petitioner could not be fastened with that entity's dues absent any garnishee relationship or proved liability to pay amounts to the defaulter. It further held that common directorship alone is insufficient to lift the corporate veil for recovery, and such veil-piercing was impermissible on the pleaded facts. Consequently, the impugned recovery/attachment order was quashed and the petition was allowed with directions to appear before the authority. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
