Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
The HC held that an earlier unsuccessful writ challenge to a show-cause notice did not bar the appellant from contesting the seizure of jewellery in later confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found that the seizure challenge had not been examined on its own merits, and that refusing to hear it would deprive the appellant of a meaningful defence. It therefore permitted the appellant to question the validity of the seizure and the proposed confiscation in the pending proceedings, and directed that reasonable time be granted if needed for effective participation. The Court did not decide the legality of the seizure on merits.
The HC held that an earlier unsuccessful writ challenge to a show-cause notice did not bar the appellant from contesting the seizure of jewellery in later confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found that the seizure challenge had not been examined on its own merits, and that refusing to hear it would deprive the appellant of a meaningful defence. It therefore permitted the appellant to question the validity of the seizure and the proposed confiscation in the pending proceedings, and directed that reasonable time be granted if needed for effective participation. The Court did not decide the legality of the seizure on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
