Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
