Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
Statements recorded under Customs Act, 1962 Section 108 were treated as sufficient to sustain confiscation where the appellant and vehicle drivers admitted that peas were brought from Nepal through unauthorised routes, and those statements were neither retracted nor discredited. The later claim of lawful import or local purchase was rejected because it was inconsistent and unsupported by purchase or payment records, so the confiscation of the seized peas was upheld. Penalty under Section 112(b), however, required a finding of mens rea; as no authority had recorded guilty knowledge or intention, the penalty was set aside despite the confiscation finding.
Statements recorded under Customs Act, 1962 Section 108 were treated as sufficient to sustain confiscation where the appellant and vehicle drivers admitted that peas were brought from Nepal through unauthorised routes, and those statements were neither retracted nor discredited. The later claim of lawful import or local purchase was rejected because it was inconsistent and unsupported by purchase or payment records, so the confiscation of the seized peas was upheld. Penalty under Section 112(b), however, required a finding of mens rea; as no authority had recorded guilty knowledge or intention, the penalty was set aside despite the confiscation finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
