Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The appellant agreed that duty paid by mistake to the government...
Duty paid by mistake to govt passed on to contractor under protest. Contractor withheld excess payment. No proof duty wasn't credited. Unjust enrichment.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The appellant agreed that duty paid by mistake to the government was passed on to the principal contractor under protest. Their argument was that the principal contractor withheld payment exceeding the refund amount to adjust the excise duty paid by the appellant. However, no factual proof was provided or shown that the duty paid by the principal contractor was not passed on or credited against duties payable. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that unjust enrichment did not occur. The impugned order upholding the rejection of refund claims due to the unjust enrichment bar was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
The appellant agreed that duty paid by mistake to the government was passed on to the principal contractor under protest. Their argument was that the principal contractor withheld payment exceeding the refund amount to adjust the excise duty paid by the appellant. However, no factual proof was provided or shown that the duty paid by the principal contractor was not passed on or credited against duties payable. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that unjust enrichment did not occur. The impugned order upholding the rejection of refund claims due to the unjust enrichment bar was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
