Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The HC allowed the petition and directed the respondents to refund to the petitioner the 70% pre-deposit of Rs. 16,11,19,226/- paid through ITC/ECL, together with interest for delayed payment, within six weeks. The court held that respondents, having consciously accepted the 70% deposit via ITC/ECL without objection, are estopped from refusing cash refund; Section 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) of the KGST Act mandate cash refunds irrespective of mode of initial deposit. The court rejected reliance on the impugned Circular and on Rule 92(1A) to deny cash reimbursement, and affirmed that statutory entitlement to refund carries an attendant right to interest for undue retention.
The HC allowed the petition and directed the respondents to refund to the petitioner the 70% pre-deposit of Rs. 16,11,19,226/- paid through ITC/ECL, together with interest for delayed payment, within six weeks. The court held that respondents, having consciously accepted the 70% deposit via ITC/ECL without objection, are estopped from refusing cash refund; Section 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) of the KGST Act mandate cash refunds irrespective of mode of initial deposit. The court rejected reliance on the impugned Circular and on Rule 92(1A) to deny cash reimbursement, and affirmed that statutory entitlement to refund carries an attendant right to interest for undue retention.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
