<?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>Incorrect regulatory framework vitiates penalty; proceedings based on wrong warehouse rules and undisclosed audit were quashed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97333</link>
    <description>Penalty proceedings against a licensee of a Special Warehouse under section 58A were invalidated because they were initiated under generic Warehouse Regulations instead of the Special Warehouse Regulations that govern section 58A licensees; reliance on an audit report that was not supplied to the licensee and commencement of proceedings nearly five years after surrender and acceptance of the licence further vitiated the case. The combination of incorrect regulatory basis, non-disclosure of the foundational audit document and inordinate delay rendered the penalty order unsustainable, and remand was refused in favor of quashing the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 15:31:12 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 15:31:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Incorrect regulatory framework vitiates penalty; proceedings based on wrong warehouse rules and undisclosed audit were quashed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97333</link>
      <description>Penalty proceedings against a licensee of a Special Warehouse under section 58A were invalidated because they were initiated under generic Warehouse Regulations instead of the Special Warehouse Regulations that govern section 58A licensees; reliance on an audit report that was not supplied to the licensee and commencement of proceedings nearly five years after surrender and acceptance of the licence further vitiated the case. The combination of incorrect regulatory basis, non-disclosure of the foundational audit document and inordinate delay rendered the penalty order unsustainable, and remand was refused in favor of quashing the order.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 15:31:12 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>