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...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
