https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154868 A retrospective statutory amendment extending the embargo on refund of security furnished for release of seized goods rendered an earlier refund direction inconsistent with the amended scheme, so the High Court's review jurisdiction under article 226 could be invoked for error apparent and the direction was modified. The plea that the security had been automatically refunded or adjusted before the fresh embargo took effect was rejected because section 29 permits adjustment only against an ascertained and quantified liability, which had not been shown. The security amounts were therefore made refundable only after the statutory embargo ceased to operate. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:49:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154868 A retrospective statutory amendment extending the embargo on refund of security furnished for release of seized goods rendered an earlier refund direction inconsistent with the amended scheme, so the High Court's review jurisdiction under article 226 could be invoked for error apparent and the direction was modified. The plea that the security had been automatically refunded or adjusted before the fresh embargo took effect was rejected because section 29 permits adjustment only against an ascertained and quantified liability, which had not been shown. The security amounts were therefore made refundable only after the statutory embargo ceased to operate. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 13 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154868