Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 112(a) and 112(b) were held to cover both abetment or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation and possession or dealing with goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation, so the show-cause notice was valid where it specified the petitioner's role in smuggling gold paste without declaration. The Court rejected the objection based on non-specification of the precise clause, holding that the notice gave adequate particulars and was answered on merits. Smuggled gold imported in breach of customs restrictions was treated as prohibited goods, so penalty under Section 112(i) was also sustained. The writ petition was dismissed and the penalty order upheld.
Section 112(a) and 112(b) were held to cover both abetment or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation and possession or dealing with goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation, so the show-cause notice was valid where it specified the petitioner's role in smuggling gold paste without declaration. The Court rejected the objection based on non-specification of the precise clause, holding that the notice gave adequate particulars and was answered on merits. Smuggled gold imported in breach of customs restrictions was treated as prohibited goods, so penalty under Section 112(i) was also sustained. The writ petition was dismissed and the penalty order upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
