Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The HC directed respondents to refund the statutory pre-deposit...
Petitioner entitled to refund of statutory pre-deposit under Section 107; retention would cause unlawful unjust enrichment, refund with interest ordered
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The HC directed respondents to refund the statutory pre-deposit paid by the petitioner to maintain an appeal under Section 107, rejecting the time-bar defence and holding that retention would constitute undue enrichment. The court treated the Division Bench precedent of this HC as binding and afforded only persuasive weight to contrary High Court authority. The petition was allowed: respondents must refund the pre-deposit within four weeks, failing which they are liable to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date the sum became due until actual payment. The court rejected any claim of lawful forfeiture under the Act insofar as it would result in unjust enrichment.
The HC directed respondents to refund the statutory pre-deposit paid by the petitioner to maintain an appeal under Section 107, rejecting the time-bar defence and holding that retention would constitute undue enrichment. The court treated the Division Bench precedent of this HC as binding and afforded only persuasive weight to contrary High Court authority. The petition was allowed: respondents must refund the pre-deposit within four weeks, failing which they are liable to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date the sum became due until actual payment. The court rejected any claim of lawful forfeiture under the Act insofar as it would result in unjust enrichment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
