Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Retention by the State of tax paid in excess or twice is inconsistent with the constitutional prohibition on taxation without legal authority; where a tax liability has been discharged, amounts deposited mistakenly or by double payment must be restituted. The administrative refusal to refund based solely on the statutory time limit for refund applications is inapplicable when retention would violate Article 265. Accordingly, a refund claim for tax paid under mistake cannot be denied exclusively by invoking the limitation provision, and the writ seeking restitution was allowed.
Retention by the State of tax paid in excess or twice is inconsistent with the constitutional prohibition on taxation without legal authority; where a tax liability has been discharged, amounts deposited mistakenly or by double payment must be restituted. The administrative refusal to refund based solely on the statutory time limit for refund applications is inapplicable when retention would violate Article 265. Accordingly, a refund claim for tax paid under mistake cannot be denied exclusively by invoking the limitation provision, and the writ seeking restitution was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
