Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
The court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
The court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
