Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
The central issue is whether the bar of unjust enrichment under show cause proceedings prevents refund of duty on cash and quantity discounts; the tribunal's earlier orders became final and therefore bar recovery, entitling the taxpayer to refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting chartered accountant certificates and dealer affidavits showing duty incidence was not passed on; absence of contrary evidence meant those certificates were admissible and probative, so refunds must be allowed. Consequently, amounts challenged as erroneously refunded cannot be recovered where final tribunal decisions and acceptable evidence establish no unjust enrichment.
The central issue is whether the bar of unjust enrichment under show cause proceedings prevents refund of duty on cash and quantity discounts; the tribunal's earlier orders became final and therefore bar recovery, entitling the taxpayer to refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting chartered accountant certificates and dealer affidavits showing duty incidence was not passed on; absence of contrary evidence meant those certificates were admissible and probative, so refunds must be allowed. Consequently, amounts challenged as erroneously refunded cannot be recovered where final tribunal decisions and acceptable evidence establish no unjust enrichment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.