Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that an officer who had earlier issued audit observations could not thereafter pass the ex parte assessment order on the same matter. As the impugned adjudication orders were made by those very officers, the Court found the assessment to be without proper jurisdiction and quashed both the adjudication orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, including bank attachment. The matter was remitted to a proper officer for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.
The High Court held that an officer who had earlier issued audit observations could not thereafter pass the ex parte assessment order on the same matter. As the impugned adjudication orders were made by those very officers, the Court found the assessment to be without proper jurisdiction and quashed both the adjudication orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, including bank attachment. The matter was remitted to a proper officer for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
