Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund of service tax paid under a wrong assessee code was treated as a matter of internal departmental adjustment, not a ground to deny substantive refund once the levy had failed. Amounts deposited during investigation were treated as pre-deposit rather than tax recovered from customers, so the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply mechanically. Where collections from members were covered by mutuality and service tax was not leviable, there was no basis to assume passing on of tax incidence. The retained investigation deposit was therefore refundable, and the unpaid balance was directed to be returned with applicable interest.
Refund of service tax paid under a wrong assessee code was treated as a matter of internal departmental adjustment, not a ground to deny substantive refund once the levy had failed. Amounts deposited during investigation were treated as pre-deposit rather than tax recovered from customers, so the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply mechanically. Where collections from members were covered by mutuality and service tax was not leviable, there was no basis to assume passing on of tax incidence. The retained investigation deposit was therefore refundable, and the unpaid balance was directed to be returned with applicable interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.