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.
Construction was funded through borrowed money, and assessee sought to utilize the account funds to repay the debt. However, Department denied the request to close the account and release funds citing incomplete construction, use of borrowed funds, non-filing of returns for the relevant assessment years, and non-compliance with Section 54F conditions.
The final order passed by the tax authority, however, cancelled assessee’s registration with retrospective effect. Assessee’s main argument was that this action was illegal because the SCN never mentioned or proposed a retrospective cancellation; it only proposed a simple cancellation.
Assessee argued that the order was barred by limitation because it was not served within the prescribed time. AO countered this, claiming the order was dispatched via speed post on December 30, 2017, and had thus left the office within the deadline.
Mere act of depositing cash into a bank account, even during demonetization, was not conclusive proof of unexplained income under Section 69A especially for a business operating under a presumptive tax scheme.
High Court held that the Revenue itself had accepted the provision in earlier years and not disputed it even before the jurisdictional High Court in appeal for AY 2009-10. Since the provision was scientific and actually discharged, no substantial question of law arose.
The allegations surfaced that a syndicate was involved in importing multiple high-end cars in the names of foreign diplomats, evading duties, forging bills of entry, and subsequently selling the cars to unsuspecting buyers in India.
