Personal liberty safeguards restrict arrest after court-directed GST appearance, requiring interim release where authorities overreach pending proceed...
Alternative statutory remedy and delay bar GST writ challenges despite pending rectification, while distinct subject matter permits parallel proceedin...
Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
The appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying eligible interest on the refunded amount. The court held that interest accrued on the deposited amount is the property of the owner, and they cannot be deprived of it. Relying on judicial precedents, the court ruled that once confiscation is set aside, the department cannot deny interest merely due to lack of statutory provision. The Bombay High Court held that seized cash must be refunded with interest. The Kerala High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision, held that the interest rate for refunds should be 12%. Although Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act were inapplicable, the court determined that the appellants were entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of payment until disbursement. However, considering a recent notification fixing the interest rate at 6%, the court allowed the appeal, entitling the appellants to interest at 6% on the refunded amount from the date of payment till disbursement.
The appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying eligible interest on the refunded amount. The court held that interest accrued on the deposited amount is the property of the owner, and they cannot be deprived of it. Relying on judicial precedents, the court ruled that once confiscation is set aside, the department cannot deny interest merely due to lack of statutory provision. The Bombay High Court held that seized cash must be refunded with interest. The Kerala High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision, held that the interest rate for refunds should be 12%. Although Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act were inapplicable, the court determined that the appellants were entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of payment until disbursement. However, considering a recent notification fixing the interest rate at 6%, the court allowed the appeal, entitling the appellants to interest at 6% on the refunded amount from the date of payment till disbursement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
