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...
SC held that the encashment of bank guarantees does not constitute payment of customs duty under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The respondents arbitrarily encashed bank guarantees without legal authorization, which constitutes unjust retention of funds. The Court directed immediate refund of the encashed amounts with 6% interest from the date of encashment, to be repaid within four months. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the appeals were allowed without cost, affirming that the respondents had no legal right to retain the appellant's funds.
SC held that the encashment of bank guarantees does not constitute payment of customs duty under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The respondents arbitrarily encashed bank guarantees without legal authorization, which constitutes unjust retention of funds. The Court directed immediate refund of the encashed amounts with 6% interest from the date of encashment, to be repaid within four months. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the appeals were allowed without cost, affirming that the respondents had no legal right to retain the appellant's funds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.