Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
The sole issue was whether the Department could adjust a tax refund for A.Y. 2023-24 against an outstanding demand for A.Y. 2022-23 without the specific higher-payment reference contemplated by the applicable Office Memoranda and s.245 procedure; the court held that, absent any reference to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to require a payment above the stay deposit, only the contractual stay deposit proportion (20%) of the A.Y. 2022-23 demand could lawfully be set off-20% (Rs. 1,03,46,296) retained and the remainder of the refund to be paid with interest within 30 days; the retained sum remains subject to the pending appeal and the residual demand remains stayed until its disposal. - HC
The sole issue was whether the Department could adjust a tax refund for A.Y. 2023-24 against an outstanding demand for A.Y. 2022-23 without the specific higher-payment reference contemplated by the applicable Office Memoranda and s.245 procedure; the court held that, absent any reference to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to require a payment above the stay deposit, only the contractual stay deposit proportion (20%) of the A.Y. 2022-23 demand could lawfully be set off-20% (Rs. 1,03,46,296) retained and the remainder of the refund to be paid with interest within 30 days; the retained sum remains subject to the pending appeal and the residual demand remains stayed until its disposal. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
