<?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>2025 (2) TMI 809 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766262</link>
    <description>Gujarat HC dismissed petition challenging rejection of drawback claim filed after five and half years delay. Petitioner exported goods in 2005-06 through ten shipping bills but failed to submit original triplicate copy required under Rule 13 of Customs Drawback Rules, 1995. Documents were reportedly lost in 2011 with only vague explanation that employee handling drawback matters left employment. Court held petitioner possessed required documents from 2006-2011 without plausible explanation for delay. Both appellate and revisional authorities correctly concluded claim invalid due to significant delay and laches. HC declined to interfere with concurrent findings under Article 227.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:23:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=800195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 809 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766262</link>
      <description>Gujarat HC dismissed petition challenging rejection of drawback claim filed after five and half years delay. Petitioner exported goods in 2005-06 through ten shipping bills but failed to submit original triplicate copy required under Rule 13 of Customs Drawback Rules, 1995. Documents were reportedly lost in 2011 with only vague explanation that employee handling drawback matters left employment. Court held petitioner possessed required documents from 2006-2011 without plausible explanation for delay. Both appellate and revisional authorities correctly concluded claim invalid due to significant delay and laches. HC declined to interfere with concurrent findings under Article 227.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>