CESTAT Ahmedabad rules it has jurisdiction over foreign currency seizure, distinguishing it from baggage. Orders release of seized currency and directs lower penalties on family members.
Calcutta HC dismisses S.A. Exports’ Rs.66 lakh duty credit claim under Incremental Exports Scheme, ruling the seven-year delay post-favorable judgment was impermissible.
Benami Act was intentionally drafted with a very broad and inclusive definition of property to ensure that all forms of assets, including cash, could be covered. A person could not be treated as a benamidar if they neither possess the property nor claim ownership of it; A property was considered benami when the purported real owner denies their ownership of it.
Application for voluntary initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had been admitted under section 10 of IBC, 2016, read with Rule 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) as from the audited financials of assessee for the years 2020-2021 to 2022-2023.
Delhi High Court uses Article 226 to restore GST registration, finding the delay in filing returns was due to the department denying portal access after initial cancellation.
ITAT Delhi deletes Rs.9.99 lakh unexplained expenditure addition, ruling that the Revenue cannot sustain an addition under Sec. 69C based purely on suspicion of cash handling logistics.
Re-testing of seized goods under Public Notice No.97/2017 was a facilitative right and could not be denied except on exceptional grounds duly recorded. Customs’ objection based on limitation and remnant sample requirement was also rejected and fresh sampling and re-testing was directed, with provisional release of goods permitted.
Customs Department could not have relied upon Circular No. 35/2017-Customs dated 16 August 2017 to outrightly deny assessee’s request for provisional release, particularly when such reliance had been held to be contrary to the statutory provisions under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore void. Hence, ordered for provision release of the the imported multi-functional printer and photocopier Machine on deposit of 50% of the applicable duty.
Where show-cause notice (SCN) that initiated the proceeding did not specifically state or propose that the cancellation would be from a an earlier, retrospective date, the cancellation of the registration should be considered effective only from the date of the show-cause notice.
Quasi-judicial authorities were obliged to render reasoned and speaking orders, and that reasons should have been assigned by the adjudicating authority to the extent whether the circulars adduced by assessee were applicable to their case or not. Accordingly, the High Court held that the orders of both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority were unsustainable, proceeding to quash the impugned orders while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority.
