Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
