Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.