Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC held that the Petitioner was entitled to claim duty drawback despite the absence of explicit documentary evidence of duty payment on invoices by the supplier (DFCL). Section 26A and related provisions support refund of import duty when duty is paid and passed on to the buyer. The Court found no legal requirement for customs duty to be separately indicated in tax invoices governed by GST law. The declarations by DFCL confirmed that customs duty was included in the price charged to the Petitioner, establishing that the duty burden was borne by the Petitioner. The authorities erred in disregarding the presumption under Section 24D and the supplier's declaration. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders and directed the Respondents to sanction the Petitioner's drawback claims at the brand rate under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 7(1) of the Drawback Rules, 2017, allowing the petition.
The HC held that the Petitioner was entitled to claim duty drawback despite the absence of explicit documentary evidence of duty payment on invoices by the supplier (DFCL). Section 26A and related provisions support refund of import duty when duty is paid and passed on to the buyer. The Court found no legal requirement for customs duty to be separately indicated in tax invoices governed by GST law. The declarations by DFCL confirmed that customs duty was included in the price charged to the Petitioner, establishing that the duty burden was borne by the Petitioner. The authorities erred in disregarding the presumption under Section 24D and the supplier's declaration. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders and directed the Respondents to sanction the Petitioner's drawback claims at the brand rate under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 7(1) of the Drawback Rules, 2017, allowing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
