Madras High Court held that seizure of Indian Currency under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 without issuance of show cause notice within stipulated time period as prescribed u/s. 110(2) is without authority of law. Accordingly, seizure memo is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹50 lakh customs penalty, holding that a co-accused’s statement, without independent corroboration, cannot justify penal action under the Customs Act.
The Tribunal ruled that an unsigned and undated draft agreement seized from a third party cannot justify an addition for unexplained investment without corroborative evidence.
HC found that ITC was allowed without addressing findings of paper transactions and returned payments. Matter was remanded for fresh consideration by Tribunal.
The Court held that provisional attachment could not continue once the underlying tax demand was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, rendering the attachment unsustainable.
The Delhi High Court quashed an ex parte GST demand order and remanded the case after finding that no effective opportunity of reply or personal hearing was granted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits representing trading receipts cannot be taxed in full as unexplained income. Only the estimated profit portion was directed to be assessed.
The High Court held that the tax department cannot deny set-off of short-term capital loss when the same claim was accepted in factually identical connected cases. Consistency in tax treatment was upheld.
The court examined a challenge to a DIR-12 filing that removed multiple directors without consent and held that the form was prima facie defective, directing fresh consideration after hearing all parties.
CESTAT held that limitation under Rule 15 starts from communication of re-valuation, making the supplementary drawback claim filed within three months valid.
