Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT ruled that Notification No. 36/2021-Customs amending N/N. 45/2017-Customs cannot have retrospective effect. The amendment substituted "duty of customs" with "Said duty, tax or cess" for re-imported goods, creating new liability for integrated tax payment. While Explanation (d) claimed to clarify existing provisions, it effectively imposed additional tax obligations not present in the original notification. The Tribunal determined that since the amendment altered substantive tax liability rather than merely clarifying existing provisions, and lacked explicit retrospective application language under Section 25(4) of Customs Act, it could only apply prospectively from publication date. Prior CBIC circular suggesting retrospective application was deemed legally unsustainable.
CESTAT ruled that Notification No. 36/2021-Customs amending N/N. 45/2017-Customs cannot have retrospective effect. The amendment substituted "duty of customs" with "Said duty, tax or cess" for re-imported goods, creating new liability for integrated tax payment. While Explanation (d) claimed to clarify existing provisions, it effectively imposed additional tax obligations not present in the original notification. The Tribunal determined that since the amendment altered substantive tax liability rather than merely clarifying existing provisions, and lacked explicit retrospective application language under Section 25(4) of Customs Act, it could only apply prospectively from publication date. Prior CBIC circular suggesting retrospective application was deemed legally unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
