Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Eligibility of the petitioner to make a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2015 (SVLDRS) and the appropriation of the amount quantified in the audit report from the eligible refund claimed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was ineligible to make a declaration under SVLDRS as the audit was initiated before 30.06.2019, and the amount of duty involved was not quantified on or before that date, as per Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme. Regarding the appropriation of the refund, the court ruled that the respondent authority was not justified in adjusting the outstanding dues quantified in the audit report from the refund claim without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, as required u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner regarding the refund claim.
Eligibility of the petitioner to make a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2015 (SVLDRS) and the appropriation of the amount quantified in the audit report from the eligible refund claimed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was ineligible to make a declaration under SVLDRS as the audit was initiated before 30.06.2019, and the amount of duty involved was not quantified on or before that date, as per Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme. Regarding the appropriation of the refund, the court ruled that the respondent authority was not justified in adjusting the outstanding dues quantified in the audit report from the refund claim without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, as required u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner regarding the refund claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.