Exemption for non-air-conditioned restaurant services survives where the establishment's air-conditioned section is separately identifiable and taxabl...
Refund limitation turned on whether an earlier refund application, allegedly filed on 02.06.2011, had in fact been received by the Department; if receipt is proved, that date would govern limitation and the claim would not be time-barred. Because there was no record evidence of receipt, the question was remanded to the refund sanctioning authority for verification. The appellate authority had also exceeded the scope of the original rejection by introducing a new ground on proof of payment; that reasoning was set aside. On remand, the authority may examine double payment and whether the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 is satisfied.
Refund limitation turned on whether an earlier refund application, allegedly filed on 02.06.2011, had in fact been received by the Department; if receipt is proved, that date would govern limitation and the claim would not be time-barred. Because there was no record evidence of receipt, the question was remanded to the refund sanctioning authority for verification. The appellate authority had also exceeded the scope of the original rejection by introducing a new ground on proof of payment; that reasoning was set aside. On remand, the authority may examine double payment and whether the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 is satisfied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
