<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (10) TMI 1278 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298355</link>
    <description>A separate penalty on a partner was held unsustainable where penalty had already been imposed on the firm under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal relied on binding precedent to conclude that once the firm was penalised, a further penalty on the partner could not be sustained. The Gujarat HC agreed that the Tribunal had correctly applied the earlier decision and found no contrary ground to disturb that view, so the challenge to the Tribunal&#039;s order failed and the separate penalty was not interfered with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2021 08:38:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=659643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 1278 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298355</link>
      <description>A separate penalty on a partner was held unsustainable where penalty had already been imposed on the firm under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal relied on binding precedent to conclude that once the firm was penalised, a further penalty on the partner could not be sustained. The Gujarat HC agreed that the Tribunal had correctly applied the earlier decision and found no contrary ground to disturb that view, so the challenge to the Tribunal&#039;s order failed and the separate penalty was not interfered with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>