Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
