Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
Penalty for estimation of income and disallowances for tax non-deduction clarified: estimation-based penalties not sustainable; additions without conc...
CESTAT found that the 90 day limit under Regulation 17(7) did...
Authorization requirements for customs brokers and benami shipping bills: tribunal upholds licence revocation and penalties after COVID time limit found applicable
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT found that the 90 day limit under Regulation 17(7) did not lapse because the COVID extension covered the inquiry and order dates; therefore the order was timely. The tribunal held that a customs broker breached Regulation 10(a) and 10(d) by filing benami shipping bills using third party IECs without authorization or contact, and breached Regulation 10(n) by failing to verify IEC, PAN, GSTIN and client KYC. No breach of Regulation 10(e) was found. Given the deliberate filing of benami bills, the tribunal upheld revocation of licence, forfeiture of security and a monetary penalty.
CESTAT found that the 90 day limit under Regulation 17(7) did not lapse because the COVID extension covered the inquiry and order dates; therefore the order was timely. The tribunal held that a customs broker breached Regulation 10(a) and 10(d) by filing benami shipping bills using third party IECs without authorization or contact, and breached Regulation 10(n) by failing to verify IEC, PAN, GSTIN and client KYC. No breach of Regulation 10(e) was found. Given the deliberate filing of benami bills, the tribunal upheld revocation of licence, forfeiture of security and a monetary penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.