Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Liability to pay cost recovery charges for customs officers deployed at a Container Freight Station was upheld because the regulatory framework, consistent administrative practice and the petitioner's own prior remittances showed that operators were liable unless expressly exempted. The Court applied contemporanea expositio and substantial compliance, finding that actual customs deployment and supervision satisfied the statutory purpose, and that later internal cadre regularisation did not extinguish the obligation. The challenge was also barred by res judicata and estoppel by conduct, since the liability issue had already been litigated and the petitioner had accepted the levy over time. The remaining quantification dispute was treated as factual and unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, and the cargo movement restriction was sustained as a lawful response to persistent non-payment.
Liability to pay cost recovery charges for customs officers deployed at a Container Freight Station was upheld because the regulatory framework, consistent administrative practice and the petitioner's own prior remittances showed that operators were liable unless expressly exempted. The Court applied contemporanea expositio and substantial compliance, finding that actual customs deployment and supervision satisfied the statutory purpose, and that later internal cadre regularisation did not extinguish the obligation. The challenge was also barred by res judicata and estoppel by conduct, since the liability issue had already been litigated and the petitioner had accepted the levy over time. The remaining quantification dispute was treated as factual and unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, and the cargo movement restriction was sustained as a lawful response to persistent non-payment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
