Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
A High Court decision on tax litigation reiterated that condonation of delay depends only on sufficient cause, and prolonged administrative inaction, unexplained gaps and file movement without justification do not warrant indulgence; the State is held to the same diligence standard as any litigant. It also reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used for rehearing unless there is an apparent error or comparable ground. On the tax issue, the Court applied strict construction of the notification and held that denatured spirit is distinct from ethyl alcohol; because the 30.03.2002 notification covered only rectified spirit, neutral spirit and ethyl alcohol, it did not impose entry tax on denatured spirit.
A High Court decision on tax litigation reiterated that condonation of delay depends only on sufficient cause, and prolonged administrative inaction, unexplained gaps and file movement without justification do not warrant indulgence; the State is held to the same diligence standard as any litigant. It also reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used for rehearing unless there is an apparent error or comparable ground. On the tax issue, the Court applied strict construction of the notification and held that denatured spirit is distinct from ethyl alcohol; because the 30.03.2002 notification covered only rectified spirit, neutral spirit and ethyl alcohol, it did not impose entry tax on denatured spirit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.