https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310418 Administrative delay in processing counsel's bills could not justify dilution of the existing payment direction, because scrutiny and verification were already required to operate within the CBDT time framework. The request for modification or recall was rejected, and the Court held that streamlining internal processes was the proper response to delay, not extending timelines. It also held that interest on delayed clearance was not confined to future bills: the compensatory purpose of interest required payment on outstanding dues already cleared, without a separate claim from counsel. The earlier directions were therefore affirmed, and compliance with the interest-payment regime was required. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Oct 2023 10:31:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310418 Administrative delay in processing counsel's bills could not justify dilution of the existing payment direction, because scrutiny and verification were already required to operate within the CBDT time framework. The request for modification or recall was rejected, and the Court held that streamlining internal processes was the proper response to delay, not extending timelines. It also held that interest on delayed clearance was not confined to future bills: the compensatory purpose of interest required payment on outstanding dues already cleared, without a separate claim from counsel. The earlier directions were therefore affirmed, and compliance with the interest-payment regime was required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310418