Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
