Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
A High Court considered adjustment of refunds against disputed tax demand during pending appeals. It declined to interfere with an earlier refund adjustment because the challenge was brought after more than three years without explanation, treating delay as fatal to that claim. It held that Section 245 requires prior intimation before any refund adjustment so the assessee has a real opportunity to object; adjusting the refund the next day, despite a 21-day response window, violated the statute and natural justice. It also held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay, but recovery through refund adjustment should normally respect administrative guidance limiting recovery beyond 20% without special justification. The Court ordered refund of the excess over 20% without interest, subject to the pending appeal.
A High Court considered adjustment of refunds against disputed tax demand during pending appeals. It declined to interfere with an earlier refund adjustment because the challenge was brought after more than three years without explanation, treating delay as fatal to that claim. It held that Section 245 requires prior intimation before any refund adjustment so the assessee has a real opportunity to object; adjusting the refund the next day, despite a 21-day response window, violated the statute and natural justice. It also held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay, but recovery through refund adjustment should normally respect administrative guidance limiting recovery beyond 20% without special justification. The Court ordered refund of the excess over 20% without interest, subject to the pending appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
