TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the Specified Officer's demand for refund of customs duty equivalent to benefits claimed under Rule 25 of SEZ Rules, holding that the petitioner failed to utilize imported goods within the stipulated validity/extended period. The court found Rule 25 applicable (not Rule 27(9)), and that prior extension grants and a pending further extension application did not estop the authority or create a legitimate expectation to defeat statutory liability; earlier administrative decision prevailed. The HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Art. 226, concluding no grounds existed to interfere with the duty demand and enforcement action.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
