Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
