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...
Unjust enrichment does not bar a customs-duty refund where evidence establishes that the duty incidence was not passed to buyers. A Chartered Accountant certificate, Bills of Entry and sales invoices showing bunker oil was sold below its import value supported non-recovery of even the import cost. Once that material was produced, Revenue needed tangible evidence that buyers bore the duty; recording duty as expenditure in the profit and loss account was insufficient. The High Court upheld the finding that the importer had not passed on the duty incidence, so the refund was properly allowed and no substantial question of law arose.
Unjust enrichment does not bar a customs-duty refund where evidence establishes that the duty incidence was not passed to buyers. A Chartered Accountant certificate, Bills of Entry and sales invoices showing bunker oil was sold below its import value supported non-recovery of even the import cost. Once that material was produced, Revenue needed tangible evidence that buyers bore the duty; recording duty as expenditure in the profit and loss account was insufficient. The High Court upheld the finding that the importer had not passed on the duty incidence, so the refund was properly allowed and no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.