Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the denial of refund of excess tax paid by contractors under the Haryana Alternative Tax Compliance Scheme for Contractors, 2016. The court examined the Constitutional Validity of Clause 4(2) of the scheme and found that it created unjust enrichment in favor of the Revenue, disadvantaging contractors who had been regularly paying taxes. Referring to CORPORATION BANK VERSUS SARASWATI ABHARANSALA, the court emphasized that excess tax must be refunded unless it involves unjust enrichment. The court quashed the orders denying refund, ruling in favor of the petitioners and directing payment of refund with interest within four weeks, with additional interest at 9% if delayed. Petition allowed.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the denial of refund of excess tax paid by contractors under the Haryana Alternative Tax Compliance Scheme for Contractors, 2016. The court examined the Constitutional Validity of Clause 4(2) of the scheme and found that it created unjust enrichment in favor of the Revenue, disadvantaging contractors who had been regularly paying taxes. Referring to CORPORATION BANK VERSUS SARASWATI ABHARANSALA, the court emphasized that excess tax must be refunded unless it involves unjust enrichment. The court quashed the orders denying refund, ruling in favor of the petitioners and directing payment of refund with interest within four weeks, with additional interest at 9% if delayed. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.