Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limi...
Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
