Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.52 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Section 28B in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 79 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Suvidhe Ltd. vs Union Of India on 3 February, 1996
"3. It also appears that Revenue has accepted the said decisions and
the view finds support from the decisions of the Bombay High Court
in Nel-co Limited v. UOI, (2002) 144 ELT 56 and Suvidhe
Ltd. v. UOI, (1996) 82 ELT 177 (Bom.)
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Itc Ltd. (P.S.P Division) on 23 December, 2013
and the Supreme Court
in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. ITC Ltd. - (2005)
179 ELT 15 (S.C.) relating to pre-deposits made for hearing of the
appeals. We need not express any opinion on the amended
provisions.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal vs M/S. Shelly Products And Another on 8 May, 2003
11. Though there is no clarity of the circumstances under which the
petitioner deposited the said sum of Rs. 2,38,00,000/- during
audit/investigation but the undisputed position remains that the
deposit was under protest and against anticipated liability and
which liability though fructified by the respondents was set aside
by the CESTAT and which order has attained finality. It is not the
case of the respondents that the said deposit was voluntary or by
way of self-assessment and which has been accepted by the
respondents and in which case the respondents could perhaps have
argued that the said deposit was voluntary and not refundable, as
was the case in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal v. Shelly
Products, (2003) 5 SCC 461. On the contrary, the assessment done
by the respondents and the demand raised in pursuance thereto, of
Rs. 4,66,39,061/- and where against Rs. 2,38,00,000/- was
adjusted, has been set aside in entirety and as of today there is no
assessment which had attained finality assessing the liability of the
petitioner to tax of Rs. 2,38,00,000/-. The respondents as State can
recover and/or retain as tax only such amounts which are assessed
and found due as tax and which assessment has attained finality.
The respondents, as State, cannot retain even a single paisa of the
assessee, unless has been found due towards tax liability and which
is not the case here. At the time when the amount of Rs.
2,38,00,000/- was deposited, there was no assessment and no
demand.