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...
Floating-rig services are classifiable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service, taxable only from 16 May 2008, rather than Mining Service. Service tax collected under the erroneous classification and borne by the service recipient lacked legal authority under Article 265, supporting refund even though the service provider had not challenged its assessment. Statutory refund limitation did not justify retention where payment arose from a mistake of law caused by misclassification. Certificates establishing that the recipient bore the tax burden supported the finding that refund would not result in unjust enrichment. Appellate authorities and the Tribunal could correct the classification error and grant refund without requiring a civil suit or writ petition.
Floating-rig services are classifiable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service, taxable only from 16 May 2008, rather than Mining Service. Service tax collected under the erroneous classification and borne by the service recipient lacked legal authority under Article 265, supporting refund even though the service provider had not challenged its assessment. Statutory refund limitation did not justify retention where payment arose from a mistake of law caused by misclassification. Certificates establishing that the recipient bore the tax burden supported the finding that refund would not result in unjust enrichment. Appellate authorities and the Tribunal could correct the classification error and grant refund without requiring a civil suit or writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
