Composite GST notices across tax periods breach separate limitation requirements, permitting fresh period-compliant proceedings where lawfully availab...
Bank-account freezing under anti-money-laundering law requires recorded reasons; writ review remains available despite an alternative statutory remedy...
Mere misclassification of imported goods in the Bill of Entry did not, by itself, amount to misdeclaration under section 111(m) or make the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 112(a)(ii) is sustainable only where the goods are first liable to confiscation under section 111; in the absence of confiscability, the penalty had no legal basis. Even if the goods were wrongly self-assessed or classified, that did not establish liability to confiscation on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore set aside.
Mere misclassification of imported goods in the Bill of Entry did not, by itself, amount to misdeclaration under section 111(m) or make the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 112(a)(ii) is sustainable only where the goods are first liable to confiscation under section 111; in the absence of confiscability, the penalty had no legal basis. Even if the goods were wrongly self-assessed or classified, that did not establish liability to confiscation on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.