Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Classification of exported services between Group 84 and Group 86 was held to be a question of interpretation; the thin distinction in descriptions and a harmonious reading of invoices supported an interpretative dispute. Because the appellant had a bona fide belief in its Group 86 claim, had paid customs duty and interest, and had accepted and paid an administrative penalty, the conduct did not amount to willful suppression. On that basis penal liability under the customs penalty provision was not warranted and the imposed penalties on the company and its director were set aside, with consequential relief available.
Classification of exported services between Group 84 and Group 86 was held to be a question of interpretation; the thin distinction in descriptions and a harmonious reading of invoices supported an interpretative dispute. Because the appellant had a bona fide belief in its Group 86 claim, had paid customs duty and interest, and had accepted and paid an administrative penalty, the conduct did not amount to willful suppression. On that basis penal liability under the customs penalty provision was not warranted and the imposed penalties on the company and its director were set aside, with consequential relief available.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
