Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Supreme Court ruled on the refund of Stamp Duty for an un-executed conveyance deed u/s 47 (c) of the Act and Rules 21, 22A of Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The appellant diligently pursued legal remedies and was denied refund on grounds of limitation. Evidence is not required with the application for refund u/s 47. The legal principle from THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. was cited, emphasizing that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The appellant's case warranted a refund as the expiry of limitation does not bar the right to claim refund. The appellant acted in good faith but was deceived by the Vendor, leading to the cancellation of the deed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The Supreme Court ruled on the refund of Stamp Duty for an un-executed conveyance deed u/s 47 (c) of the Act and Rules 21, 22A of Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The appellant diligently pursued legal remedies and was denied refund on grounds of limitation. Evidence is not required with the application for refund u/s 47. The legal principle from THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. was cited, emphasizing that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The appellant's case warranted a refund as the expiry of limitation does not bar the right to claim refund. The appellant acted in good faith but was deceived by the Vendor, leading to the cancellation of the deed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
