Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 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.