Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95636 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 export duty allegedly collected from an SEZ developer despite a court stay is discussed as not being subject to the ordinary limitation period where the claimant first pursued the SEZ authority and then filed before customs as directed. The text states that, following invalidation of the underlying levy, rejection solely as time-barred was unsustainable. It also explains that unjust enrichment did not apply where the SEZ developer was the ultimate buyer, used the steel to establish the SEZ, did not resell it or use it to manufacture saleable goods, and supporting contractor and Chartered Accountant certifications showed that the duty burden was not passed to customers. Consequential refund relief was granted.
Refund of export duty allegedly collected from an SEZ developer despite a court stay is discussed as not being subject to the ordinary limitation period where the claimant first pursued the SEZ authority and then filed before customs as directed. The text states that, following invalidation of the underlying levy, rejection solely as time-barred was unsustainable. It also explains that unjust enrichment did not apply where the SEZ developer was the ultimate buyer, used the steel to establish the SEZ, did not resell it or use it to manufacture saleable goods, and supporting contractor and Chartered Accountant certifications showed that the duty burden was not passed to customers. Consequential refund relief was granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
