Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
Petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- under Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, against which Respondents recovered Rs. 19,16,74,501/-, resulting in excess collection of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Respondents adjusted Petitioner's refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for 2011-2012 against non-existent demand for 2010-2011, without authority. Defect notice u/s 11 of Settlement Scheme was contrary to law as Petitioner made excess payment, not shortfall. Section 18 of Settlement Scheme, prohibiting refund, is inapplicable as Petitioner seeks refund of 2011-2012, not amount paid under Settlement Scheme. HC directed Respondents to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with 6% interest from 1st June 2019 till payment date u/s 52 read with Rule 88 of MVAT Rules.
Petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- under Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, against which Respondents recovered Rs. 19,16,74,501/-, resulting in excess collection of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Respondents adjusted Petitioner's refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for 2011-2012 against non-existent demand for 2010-2011, without authority. Defect notice u/s 11 of Settlement Scheme was contrary to law as Petitioner made excess payment, not shortfall. Section 18 of Settlement Scheme, prohibiting refund, is inapplicable as Petitioner seeks refund of 2011-2012, not amount paid under Settlement Scheme. HC directed Respondents to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with 6% interest from 1st June 2019 till payment date u/s 52 read with Rule 88 of MVAT Rules.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
