Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the refund claim as time barred, affirming that the limitation period commenced from the "date of service" of the finalization of provisional assessment under section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court concurred with the High Court's finding that the tribunal appropriately considered the documentation notifying the assessee of the finalization. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the SC found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, finalizing the rejection of the refund claim on limitation grounds.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the refund claim as time barred, affirming that the limitation period commenced from the "date of service" of the finalization of provisional assessment under section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court concurred with the High Court's finding that the tribunal appropriately considered the documentation notifying the assessee of the finalization. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the SC found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, finalizing the rejection of the refund claim on limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
