<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (11) TMI 524 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113227</link>
    <description>A statutory pre-deposit made as a condition for filing an appeal against an assessed market fee was treated as payment towards the existing liability, not a mere security deposit, so it was non-refundable when the assessment remained undisturbed. The prospective protection in the earlier ruling applied only to amounts not yet collected and did not affect sums already deposited before that decision. By contrast, the 10% amount deposited towards penalty was refundable because the basis for retaining that penalty did not survive once future recovery of the underlying levy was excluded. The stated ratio is that a fixed statutory pre-deposit against an assessed liability is payment in discharge of that liability, not a refundable deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 524 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113227</link>
      <description>A statutory pre-deposit made as a condition for filing an appeal against an assessed market fee was treated as payment towards the existing liability, not a mere security deposit, so it was non-refundable when the assessment remained undisturbed. The prospective protection in the earlier ruling applied only to amounts not yet collected and did not affect sums already deposited before that decision. By contrast, the 10% amount deposited towards penalty was refundable because the basis for retaining that penalty did not survive once future recovery of the underlying levy was excluded. The stated ratio is that a fixed statutory pre-deposit against an assessed liability is payment in discharge of that liability, not a refundable deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>