Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Under FEMA, pre-deposit of penalty is the rule and waiver is an exception available only on proof of undue hardship, with protective conditions for recovery. The Tribunal had already exercised that discretion by granting substantial relief, and the High Court found no clear prima facie case for total waiver, as the petitioners' own case showed awareness that the remittances attracted FEMA. It also held that no perversity, unreasonableness or non-application of mind was shown in the hardship assessment, and that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate the Tribunal's discretion. The Tribunal's order was therefore upheld in principle, with only the immediate cash pre-deposit reduced to 5% and the balance to be secured by bank guarantee or surety.
Under FEMA, pre-deposit of penalty is the rule and waiver is an exception available only on proof of undue hardship, with protective conditions for recovery. The Tribunal had already exercised that discretion by granting substantial relief, and the High Court found no clear prima facie case for total waiver, as the petitioners' own case showed awareness that the remittances attracted FEMA. It also held that no perversity, unreasonableness or non-application of mind was shown in the hardship assessment, and that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate the Tribunal's discretion. The Tribunal's order was therefore upheld in principle, with only the immediate cash pre-deposit reduced to 5% and the balance to be secured by bank guarantee or surety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
