Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The SC held that the Appellant was competent to notify the Interim Coal Policy and to fix interim prices; the 20% surcharge for linked non-core consumers was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The High Court's reliance on earlier provincial authority was rejected as unsustainable. On unjust enrichment, the Court held claimants bore the onus to prove they had not passed the additional cost to third parties; absence of such evidence before the High Court vitiated their refund claim, though limited discretion was exercised to permit relevant documents in appeal. The High Court's order was set aside, the appeal allowed, and no refund was directed.
The SC held that the Appellant was competent to notify the Interim Coal Policy and to fix interim prices; the 20% surcharge for linked non-core consumers was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The High Court's reliance on earlier provincial authority was rejected as unsustainable. On unjust enrichment, the Court held claimants bore the onus to prove they had not passed the additional cost to third parties; absence of such evidence before the High Court vitiated their refund claim, though limited discretion was exercised to permit relevant documents in appeal. The High Court's order was set aside, the appeal allowed, and no refund was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
