Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that u/ss 28AA(1) and 28(10) of the Customs Act, there is no requirement for a demand for interest to be made in the original assessment order. Interest liability arises automatically if the duty demand raised u/s 28 is not paid within the specified time. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that interest cannot be demanded when there is no mention of it in the assessment order. The respondents raised the interest demand within three months of the duty demand, which was not paid, and therefore the demand for interest was valid and not time-barred. The petitioner's factory was rightly not released due to the pending interest liability.
The High Court held that u/ss 28AA(1) and 28(10) of the Customs Act, there is no requirement for a demand for interest to be made in the original assessment order. Interest liability arises automatically if the duty demand raised u/s 28 is not paid within the specified time. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that interest cannot be demanded when there is no mention of it in the assessment order. The respondents raised the interest demand within three months of the duty demand, which was not paid, and therefore the demand for interest was valid and not time-barred. The petitioner's factory was rightly not released due to the pending interest liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
