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 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 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 
