Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the respondent Bank's actions in not releasing amounts deposited in an Escrow Account for payment of statutory liabilities like GST from 2017 onwards is maintainable, despite other disputes being adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Bank's adjustments to the receivables in the Escrow Account for loan repayment, resulting in non-compliance with statutory requirements like filing GSTR-3B and non-payment of GST, constituted a breach of the Escrow Agreement. The petitioner Company did not have control or the right to operate the Escrow Account, which was to be operated by the respondent Bank as per the Agreement. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the respondent Bank's actions in not releasing amounts deposited in an Escrow Account for payment of statutory liabilities like GST from 2017 onwards is maintainable, despite other disputes being adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Bank's adjustments to the receivables in the Escrow Account for loan repayment, resulting in non-compliance with statutory requirements like filing GSTR-3B and non-payment of GST, constituted a breach of the Escrow Agreement. The petitioner Company did not have control or the right to operate the Escrow Account, which was to be operated by the respondent Bank as per the Agreement. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
