Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
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 4813 
Join Channel 
