Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT allowed refund of service tax paid twice for April-June 2017 period, ruling that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 does not apply. The Tribunal held that when service tax is paid twice - first legally and second inadvertently - the second payment lacks legal basis as there is no taxable event. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and earlier CESTAT rulings, it was determined that time-bar provisions are inapplicable for amounts paid under mistaken notion where no tax liability existed. The impugned order was set aside and refund claim allowed, as duplicate payment cannot be considered as tax/duty under Section 11B.
CESTAT allowed refund of service tax paid twice for April-June 2017 period, ruling that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 does not apply. The Tribunal held that when service tax is paid twice - first legally and second inadvertently - the second payment lacks legal basis as there is no taxable event. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and earlier CESTAT rulings, it was determined that time-bar provisions are inapplicable for amounts paid under mistaken notion where no tax liability existed. The impugned order was set aside and refund claim allowed, as duplicate payment cannot be considered as tax/duty under Section 11B.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
