Request-driven road restoration attracts reverse-charge GST, not governmental-function treatment or compensatory-damages status for business recipient...
Road restoration charges for commercial pipeline works are taxable Government services, with reverse charge liability and no public-function exemption...
Model-wise import cap monitoring cannot justify withholding used multifunction machines where all-India tracking is absent and full security is furnis...
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties and orders
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
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) were treated as inadmissible where coercion was alleged and medical evidence supported assault; therefore those statements could not underpin rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 or re-determination under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. Emails and attached invoices whose provenance was not satisfactorily established while the appellant was in custody were also excluded. Consequently, treatment of the appellant as beneficial owner and consequent demands, penalties and confiscation founded on the unsupported valuation and inadmissible evidence were set aside.
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) were treated as inadmissible where coercion was alleged and medical evidence supported assault; therefore those statements could not underpin rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 or re-determination under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. Emails and attached invoices whose provenance was not satisfactorily established while the appellant was in custody were also excluded. Consequently, treatment of the appellant as beneficial owner and consequent demands, penalties and confiscation founded on the unsupported valuation and inadmissible evidence were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
