Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act were held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand higher than the amount proposed in the initiating notice, because the notice defines the scope of jurisdiction and cannot be expanded without amendment. The Tribunal also treated a unilateral demand letter as no valid show cause notice, since Section 28 requires a notice calling upon the noticee to answer the proposed demand before any recovery is fastened. In addition, adjudication after nearly twenty-three years was held to cause fatal prejudice and offend the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, so the impugned order was set aside.
Recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act were held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand higher than the amount proposed in the initiating notice, because the notice defines the scope of jurisdiction and cannot be expanded without amendment. The Tribunal also treated a unilateral demand letter as no valid show cause notice, since Section 28 requires a notice calling upon the noticee to answer the proposed demand before any recovery is fastened. In addition, adjudication after nearly twenty-three years was held to cause fatal prejudice and offend the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, so the impugned order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
