Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
