Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Delay and laches barred interference under Article 226 where the petitioner failed to respond properly to the discrepancy notice and show cause notice, did not furnish invoice details before the statutory authority, and raised supplier certificates only belatedly despite their earlier availability. The High Court found no justifiable basis to reopen an assessment that had already attained finality, particularly in view of the prolonged delay and the petitioner's negligence in the statutory proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed and the assessment order left undisturbed.
Delay and laches barred interference under Article 226 where the petitioner failed to respond properly to the discrepancy notice and show cause notice, did not furnish invoice details before the statutory authority, and raised supplier certificates only belatedly despite their earlier availability. The High Court found no justifiable basis to reopen an assessment that had already attained finality, particularly in view of the prolonged delay and the petitioner's negligence in the statutory proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed and the assessment order left undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
