Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
