Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
