During investigation huge property have been seized which were disproportionate to her known source of income, although, she was housewife and no tax return was filed. It is submitted that the petitioner had several joint bank accounts with her husband Tapas Kumar Dutta, 45 mutual fund investment and number of LIC policies.
HC held that provisional attachment under section 83 of CGST Act 2017 cannot be extended & also there is no order extending the same.
Merely because petitioner failed to submit grounds of appeal as an attachment at the time of filing its memo of appeal in Form No. 35, could not be a basis for appellate authority to pass order ex-parte especially when submissions sufficiently reflected the grounds on which order of assessment was being challenged in appeal proceedings.
The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to apply live link test i.e. the expression ‘reason to believe’, to denote reasons, which are based on tangible material and have a live link with the formation of the belief. Also, the Hon’ble High Court observed that blocking of electronic credit ledger is a drastic step, and therefore it was necessary for the concerned officer to have some material to form a belief that the conditions under Rule 86A of the Rules are satisfied.
Madras High Court held that invocation of extended period of limitation unjustified as non-disclosure or claim of non-liability was on the basis of bonafide interpretation of law.
Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that State action for not granting of remission of tax cannot be said to be arbitrary. Accordingly, held that writ petition is devoid of merit.
Madras High Court held that administrative side cannot seek leave to review an order passed by its own judgements on the judicial side as the same would amount to undermining the judicial fibre.
For invoking Section 67 of the Act existence of reasons to believe to subject the premises to search and seize goods is mandated. Here, the authority is vacillating between Section 67 and 68; whether the goods are in transit or in the godown.
Gujarat High Court held that Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty of deciding the matter on merits till the outcome of pending matter before Apex Court. Section 35C(1) of the the Central Excise Act, mandates the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals on merits.
Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) Vs R.P. Cargo Handling Services (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner is require to ‘issue’ (ant not ‘serve’) a notice, under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), within a period of ninety days of the receipt of the offence report. Facts- The […]
