Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
