Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1601 to 1620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Writ jurisdiction against a show cause notice is not barred in all cases and may be invoked where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, non-application of mind or breach of natural justice; the High Court's refusal to entertain the challenge on maintainability alone was therefore unjustified. Under Section 37A FEMA, seizure depends on a substantive "reason to believe" that the foreign asset is held in contravention of Section 4, and refusal by the Competent Authority to confirm seizure is a considered finding that the threshold was not met. The High Court and the final adjudication order were set aside because they proceeded as if seizure had been confirmed and impaired the pending departmental appeal; the matter was restored to the show cause stage, with the appeal to be decided first.
Writ jurisdiction against a show cause notice is not barred in all cases and may be invoked where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, non-application of mind or breach of natural justice; the High Court's refusal to entertain the challenge on maintainability alone was therefore unjustified. Under Section 37A FEMA, seizure depends on a substantive "reason to believe" that the foreign asset is held in contravention of Section 4, and refusal by the Competent Authority to confirm seizure is a considered finding that the threshold was not met. The High Court and the final adjudication order were set aside because they proceeded as if seizure had been confirmed and impaired the pending departmental appeal; the matter was restored to the show cause stage, with the appeal to be decided first.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
