CESTAT held that goods cannot be confiscated without concrete evidence of illegal import. Local market opinion alone was found insufficient to establish smuggling of non-notified goods.
The High Court considered whether continued custody was justified in a GST offence case after filing of the complaint. It granted bail noting prolonged detention and the likelihood of delay in trial.
The tribunal examined whether reassessment could be initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction over a non-resident assessee. It held that notices issued by an incorrect authority render the entire reassessment void.
The Tribunal upheld revision where the Assessing Officer failed to examine an exempt LTCG claim linked to penny stock manipulation. The ruling affirms that lack of inquiry makes an order erroneous and prejudicial.
Calcutta High Court held that income tax returns filed during victim’s lifetime must be relied upon for assessing income. Compensation was enhanced after rejecting an arbitrary income assessment by Tribunal.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs cannot re-assess import value solely on NIDB data. Transaction value must first be rejected on cogent evidence before any enhancement.
CESTAT Kolkata held that once proceedings are initiated under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, separate penalty proceedings under the Customs Act are not permissible without independent evidence of offence.
The Tribunal set aside cancellation of charitable registration after finding lack of proper opportunity and consideration of submissions. Fresh adjudication was directed in line with natural justice.
The issue was whether certain objects benefiting members disqualified charitable registration. The Tribunal ruled that dominant charitable objects like education and aid to poor students justified granting registration.
CESTAT held that once goods are confiscated and redeemed, they cannot be confiscated again. The ruling nullified confiscation and penalties imposed on a subsequent purchaser.
