Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Refund of service tax paid under a claimed mistake of law remained subject to the statutory refund mechanism under section 11B, including the prescribed limitation period and unjust enrichment test. Relying on Mafatlal Industries and Southern Surface Finishers, the CESTAT held that later realisation that tax was not payable did not displace statutory limits, and the assessee failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on to customers. The refund rejection on both limitation and unjust enrichment was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.
Refund of service tax paid under a claimed mistake of law remained subject to the statutory refund mechanism under section 11B, including the prescribed limitation period and unjust enrichment test. Relying on Mafatlal Industries and Southern Surface Finishers, the CESTAT held that later realisation that tax was not payable did not displace statutory limits, and the assessee failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on to customers. The refund rejection on both limitation and unjust enrichment was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.