Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 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.