<?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>2009 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33857</link>
    <description>A statutory exemption notification must be considered by the assessing authority at the time of assessment, even if the assessee did not expressly claim it, and writ jurisdiction may still be exercised despite an alternate statutory appeal where the assessment is ex facie erroneous and causes manifest injustice. On the facts, the omission to claim the exemption was treated as inadvertent, so the additional duty component was directed to be removed from the assessments. However, refund could not be granted immediately because the underlying bills of entry first had to be amended; only after that modification could refund be pursued in accordance with law, including unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2025 18:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33857</link>
      <description>A statutory exemption notification must be considered by the assessing authority at the time of assessment, even if the assessee did not expressly claim it, and writ jurisdiction may still be exercised despite an alternate statutory appeal where the assessment is ex facie erroneous and causes manifest injustice. On the facts, the omission to claim the exemption was treated as inadvertent, so the additional duty component was directed to be removed from the assessments. However, refund could not be granted immediately because the underlying bills of entry first had to be amended; only after that modification could refund be pursued in accordance with law, including unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>