Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1991 (11) TMI 65 - HC - Customs

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court orders refund of Customs duty paid in error after limitation period The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excess Customs duty paid after the statutory limitation period had expired. It ruled that ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                            Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Court orders refund of Customs duty paid in error after limitation period

                              The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excess Customs duty paid after the statutory limitation period had expired. It ruled that the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act could not be used to deny a refund for payments made under a mistake of law. The court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the refund, emphasizing the need for justice. The court distinguished a previous judgment and rejected the argument to exhaust alternate remedies, ordering the respondents to refund the excess duty with interest for delayed payment.




                              Issues:
                              1. Entitlement to refund of Customs duty paid after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation.
                              2. Application of the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for claiming refund.
                              3. Consideration of refund under mistake of law and jurisdiction.
                              4. Jurisdiction of the court to direct refund in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.
                              5. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding the time limit for claiming refund.
                              6. Exhaustion of alternate remedies by way of appeal to the authorities under the Act.

                              Analysis:

                              Issue 1: Entitlement to refund of Customs duty paid after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation.
                              The petitioner imported a substance for manufacturing purposes and paid excess Customs duty due to a wrong assessment by the Customs authorities. The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the excess amount paid after the statutory period of limitation had expired. The Customs authorities rejected the refund application solely based on the late filing beyond the six-month limitation period.

                              Issue 2: Application of the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for claiming refund.
                              Section 27(1) of the Customs Act mandates that a claim for refund of duty should be made within six months from the date of its payment. The court analyzed whether the limitation period could be used to deny a refund when duty was paid without the sanction of law. It referenced a Supreme Court case stating that public bodies must return erroneously recovered money without any limitation period.

                              Issue 3: Consideration of refund under mistake of law and jurisdiction.
                              The court held that duty paid under a mistake of law was recovered without legal authority and jurisdiction. Therefore, the limitation period set out in Section 27(1) of the Act could not be applied to deny a refund in cases of payments made under a mistake of law.

                              Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the court to direct refund in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.
                              The court confirmed its power to direct a refund of the amount paid under a mistake of law in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that no avoidable delays were attributed to the petitioner, and the court could intervene to ensure justice.

                              Issue 5: Comparison with a previous judgment regarding the time limit for claiming refund.
                              The court distinguished a previous judgment where a refund claim was rejected due to the failure to meet the six-month limitation period. In the present case, the court noted that the duty was wrongly levied without legal sanction, and the refund claim was not dependent on disputed factual questions.

                              Issue 6: Exhaustion of alternate remedies by way of appeal to the authorities under the Act.
                              The respondents argued that the petitioner should have pursued alternate remedies by appealing to authorities under the Act. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the appellate authority could not ignore the statutory limitation period. It held that in the interest of public equity, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the excess duty paid.

                              Overall, the court directed the respondents to refund the amount claimed by the petitioner and imposed an interest rate for delayed payment, emphasizing the court's authority to ensure justice and equity in such matters.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found