Road restoration charges constitute taxable services when requested for commercial pipeline activity, requiring reverse-charge GST from the business r...
Interest on delayed release of requisitioned cash includes statutory pre-assessment interest and restitutionary compensation for unlawful post-assessm...
Incomplete inventory records justify rejecting accounts, while profit estimation requires relevant comparable material and interest falls under other ...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional alignment; delayed associated-enterprise receivables need separate LIBOR-based benchmarking, while ...
Extended reassessment limitation in search cases requires asset-linked escaped income, invalidating additions based only on unexplained money or expen...
Enhanced tolerance band under section 43CA applies retrospectively, deleting qualifying deemed-sale additions while disputed stamp valuation requires ...
HC held that Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute customs duty under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, but rather functions as a security deposit as clarified in Circular No.5/2016-Customs. EDD was collected to secure potential customs duty liability due to alleged under-declaration concerns. The limitation period prescribed under Section 27 for customs duty refund claims is not applicable to EDD refunds. The court rejected respondent's stance that refund application was time-barred, noting that EDD remained distinct from duty determined by Special Valuation Branch. The impugned order's reliance on limitation period was found legally untenable, leading to petition's allowance.
HC held that Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute customs duty under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, but rather functions as a security deposit as clarified in Circular No.5/2016-Customs. EDD was collected to secure potential customs duty liability due to alleged under-declaration concerns. The limitation period prescribed under Section 27 for customs duty refund claims is not applicable to EDD refunds. The court rejected respondent's stance that refund application was time-barred, noting that EDD remained distinct from duty determined by Special Valuation Branch. The impugned order's reliance on limitation period was found legally untenable, leading to petition's allowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4920 
