Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
