Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
