Unjust enrichment under tax laws refers to a legal principle that prevents individuals or entities from benefiting unjustly or unfairly at the expense of the tax system. It applies when a taxpayer receives a refund or tax benefit that they are not entitled to, either due to error, misrepresentation, or non-compliance with tax laws. Tax authorities have mechanisms in place to identify and rectify cases of unjust enrichment, ensuring that taxpayers do not retain undue financial advantages. Unjust enrichment provisions serve to maintain fairness, integrity, and compliance within the tax system, and non-compliance can result in penalties, interest, or legal consequences.
Corporate Law : Bombay HC allows refund of ₹78.65 lakhs in stamp duty, despite delay in filing. Court prioritizes substantive justice over techn...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Mumbai allows Bhor Industries' appeal, addressing unjust enrichment and duty refund issues from 1970-1982. Remanded case fo...
Excise Duty : The CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Hindustan Coca Cola, allowing them a refund and rejecting the concept of unjust enrichment. Le...
Excise Duty : The CESTAT Ahmedabad addresses a case involving a refund dispute related to abatement and excise duty, emphasizing the need for cl...
Excise Duty : Analyze CESTAT Mumbai's ruling in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, focusing on 'unjust enrichment' ...
Bombay HC allows refund of ₹78.65 lakhs in stamp duty, despite delay in filing. Court prioritizes substantive justice over technical lapses in cancellation case.
CESTAT Mumbai allows Bhor Industries’ appeal, addressing unjust enrichment and duty refund issues from 1970-1982. Remanded case for compliance with prior directions.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Hindustan Coca Cola, allowing them a refund and rejecting the concept of unjust enrichment. Learn about the case and its implications.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad addresses a case involving a refund dispute related to abatement and excise duty, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and transparency.
Analyze CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, focusing on ‘unjust enrichment’ and CA certificate’s role in excise duty cases.
Analysis of the CESTAT Chennai order in Axon Drugs (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise case. Discover why directing excise refund to Consumer Welfare Fund was deemed unjust.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad upholds Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision to remand the C.C.E. & S.T Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd case back to adjudicating authority for re-examination of documentary evidence regarding unjust enrichment.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proving that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customer. Accordingly, since incidence of the duty has been passed on to the buyers therefore, the refund is hit by the principles of unjust enrichment.
Unravel the details of the CESTAT Mumbai case – Satyasai Human Resource Solutions Vs Commissioner of Service Tax. CESTAT grants refund on service tax advance paid in line with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules.
Delve into judgment of CESTAT Kolkata in the case of Pecon Computech Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise, underlining non-applicability of unjust enrichment in context of Service Tax refunds
