<?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>1988 (6) TMI 52 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42383</link>
    <description>Refund claims for wharf rent and demurrage under the Major Port Trusts Act were said not to be barred where the right to refund arose only after later exemption certificates were issued; limitation, on that view, runs from accrual of the refund right, not from the date of payment. The note also states that exemption certificates did not wipe out all port charges, but required application of the concessional levy for the certified detention period, so only amounts collected in excess of the lawful rate were refundable. It further notes that the port authority could remit overcharges on its own motion, and that the claimant was entitled to the excess amount actually overcharged, not the full sum demanded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:20:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (6) TMI 52 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42383</link>
      <description>Refund claims for wharf rent and demurrage under the Major Port Trusts Act were said not to be barred where the right to refund arose only after later exemption certificates were issued; limitation, on that view, runs from accrual of the refund right, not from the date of payment. The note also states that exemption certificates did not wipe out all port charges, but required application of the concessional levy for the certified detention period, so only amounts collected in excess of the lawful rate were refundable. It further notes that the port authority could remit overcharges on its own motion, and that the claimant was entitled to the excess amount actually overcharged, not the full sum demanded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>