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 High Court held that the Settlement Commission cannot reopen or rectify its concluded settlement order under Section 154 to impose interest under Section 234B, following Supreme Court precedent. The Commission's rectification order rectifying the settlement order passed under Section 245D(4) was quashed as invalid, and the consequent demand notice was set aside. The court rejected Revenue's submission that interest should be levied from intimation under Section 143(1) until admission, holding that reopening concluded proceedings indirectly would contravene the settled rule against such reopening. Writ petition allowed.
The High Court held that the Settlement Commission cannot reopen or rectify its concluded settlement order under Section 154 to impose interest under Section 234B, following Supreme Court precedent. The Commission's rectification order rectifying the settlement order passed under Section 245D(4) was quashed as invalid, and the consequent demand notice was set aside. The court rejected Revenue's submission that interest should be levied from intimation under Section 143(1) until admission, holding that reopening concluded proceedings indirectly would contravene the settled rule against such reopening. Writ petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
