Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
541 to 560 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund claims involving tax paid under a mistaken understanding of service-tax liability turn on unjust enrichment and the character of the payment. Where the amount collected from a buyer is reversed through credit notes, supported by fund transfers and confirmations from the buyer and Chartered Accountant, the presumption that the tax burden was passed on may be rebutted, permitting refund. Amounts paid under a mistake of law may remain deposits rather than duty; consequential interest may likewise lack the character of duty. On that basis, limitation and the refund mechanism under Section 11B may not apply to such payments, while unjust enrichment does not bar refund after the incidence has been returned to the buyer.
Refund claims involving tax paid under a mistaken understanding of service-tax liability turn on unjust enrichment and the character of the payment. Where the amount collected from a buyer is reversed through credit notes, supported by fund transfers and confirmations from the buyer and Chartered Accountant, the presumption that the tax burden was passed on may be rebutted, permitting refund. Amounts paid under a mistake of law may remain deposits rather than duty; consequential interest may likewise lack the character of duty. On that basis, limitation and the refund mechanism under Section 11B may not apply to such payments, while unjust enrichment does not bar refund after the incidence has been returned to the buyer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.