Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
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...
A Customs Broker was not shown to have breached regulations 10(d), 10(e) or 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations. Regulation 10(d) only required advice to the client to comply with the Act and allied laws, and the authorization letter recorded that such advice had been given, so no further particulars were necessary. Regulation 10(e) was not violated because the exporter held a valid GST registration on the relevant export date, making the earlier cancellation immaterial. Regulation 10(n) also failed on the same basis, and the Tribunal noted that the Joint Commissioner had found no breach. The revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security were set aside, and restoration of the licence was directed.
A Customs Broker was not shown to have breached regulations 10(d), 10(e) or 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations. Regulation 10(d) only required advice to the client to comply with the Act and allied laws, and the authorization letter recorded that such advice had been given, so no further particulars were necessary. Regulation 10(e) was not violated because the exporter held a valid GST registration on the relevant export date, making the earlier cancellation immaterial. Regulation 10(n) also failed on the same basis, and the Tribunal noted that the Joint Commissioner had found no breach. The revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security were set aside, and restoration of the licence was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.