Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Refund of duty on export goods was held barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment where the exporter realised export proceeds above the FOB value declared in the shipping bill. The Tribunal applied the statutory bar and required proof that the duty incidence had not been passed on. As no cogent financial correlation or satisfactory explanation was produced to show that the excess realisation excluded the refund component, and the chartered accountant's certificate did not address this point, a presumption arose that the burden had been passed on. The refund sanction was therefore unsustainable and rejection of the claim was upheld.
Refund of duty on export goods was held barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment where the exporter realised export proceeds above the FOB value declared in the shipping bill. The Tribunal applied the statutory bar and required proof that the duty incidence had not been passed on. As no cogent financial correlation or satisfactory explanation was produced to show that the excess realisation excluded the refund component, and the chartered accountant's certificate did not address this point, a presumption arose that the burden had been passed on. The refund sanction was therefore unsustainable and rejection of the claim was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.