Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesAmounts Appropriated During Pendency Of Appeal—Despite Existence Of Stay Order—Must Be Treated...

Amounts Appropriated During Pendency Of Appeal—Despite Existence Of Stay Order—Must Be Treated As Payments Made ‘Under Protest’, Refund Not Subjected To Limitation: Madras HC

Indirect Taxes

Published on

By Mariya Paliwala
Madras HC

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madras High Court has held that amounts appropriated by the department during the pendency of an appeal—despite the existence of a stay order—must be treated as payments made “under protest,” and therefore, refund claims in such cases are not subject to the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The bench…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here
Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GST

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere With GST Order Carrying RFN but No Separate DIN or Visible Signature

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling...
GST

Negligible Listing and Disposal of GSTAT Appeals: Supreme Court Asks Tribunal President to Examine Grievance

The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking court-monitored institutional reforms...
GST

Rule 96(10) Deemed Omitted From Inception: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Interest Paid on Import IGST

The Bombay High Court has held that no interest could be levied on the...
GST

Officer Who Conducted GST Audit Can’t Issue Notice and Adjudicate Same Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that the...

More like this

GST

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere With GST Order Carrying RFN but No Separate DIN or Visible Signature

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling...
GST

Negligible Listing and Disposal of GSTAT Appeals: Supreme Court Asks Tribunal President to Examine Grievance

The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking court-monitored institutional reforms...
GST

Rule 96(10) Deemed Omitted From Inception: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Interest Paid on Import IGST

The Bombay High Court has held that no interest could be levied on the...