Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Refund of a statutory pre-deposit made for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) was held not to be governed by Section 54, because such deposit does not assume the character of tax and falls within "any other amount" under Rule 89. The Court, following State of Jharkhand v. M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited, found that reliance on Section 54, a restrictive reading of Rule 89, and Section 56 to deny refund was misplaced, and the claim could not be rejected as time-barred or otherwise non-maintainable on that basis. It also held that withholding refund on the basis of a supposed pending SFIO investigation was unsustainable once it was shown that no investigation was pending.
Refund of a statutory pre-deposit made for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) was held not to be governed by Section 54, because such deposit does not assume the character of tax and falls within "any other amount" under Rule 89. The Court, following State of Jharkhand v. M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited, found that reliance on Section 54, a restrictive reading of Rule 89, and Section 56 to deny refund was misplaced, and the claim could not be rejected as time-barred or otherwise non-maintainable on that basis. It also held that withholding refund on the basis of a supposed pending SFIO investigation was unsustainable once it was shown that no investigation was pending.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
