Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 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 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
