TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee proved that the incidence of special excise duty paid on tyres and tubes had not been passed on to the buyers of the motor vehicles, so as to avoid the bar of unjust enrichment and obtain refund.
Analysis: The refund was otherwise admissible on merits, but the decisive question was whether the presumption under section 12B stood rebutted. The assessee relied on Cost Accountant's certificates showing that the selling price of the motor vehicles remained unchanged before and after 1-3-2000. The Tribunal held that such certificates, in the absence of supporting invoices, books of account, or other primary records, could only be corroborative. Section 12A required duty to be indicated in sale documents, and those primary documents were not produced. Without the underlying records, the certificates could not establish that the duty element had not been included in the sale price.
Conclusion: The assessee failed to rebut the statutory presumption of passing on the duty incidence. The refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment and was not allowable.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim for refund is defeated by unjust enrichment unless the assessee discharges the burden under section 12B with primary evidence, and a chartered accountant's certificate alone is insufficient without supporting sale invoices and accounts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
