Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT set aside the finding that part of the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B, holding that payments made under protest were not voluntary and thus not subject to limitation. However, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to the consumer. Consequently, the entire refund claim was held to be barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant was not entitled to any refund or interest, and the sanctioned amount was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in accordance with law. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
The CESTAT set aside the finding that part of the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B, holding that payments made under protest were not voluntary and thus not subject to limitation. However, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to the consumer. Consequently, the entire refund claim was held to be barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant was not entitled to any refund or interest, and the sanctioned amount was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in accordance with law. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
