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 ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund under GST can be withheld only when the statutory conditions for invoking Section 54(11) are actually satisfied, including a pending proceeding or appeal; the mere possibility that the State may file an appeal is insufficient. The High Court held that the authority could not refuse to process a refund arising from an appellate order simply because the appeal period had not expired, as that showed no conscious application of mind and no valid basis under Rule 92(2). The refusal was set aside and the refund claim remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the taxpayer and passing a reasoned order.
Refund under GST can be withheld only when the statutory conditions for invoking Section 54(11) are actually satisfied, including a pending proceeding or appeal; the mere possibility that the State may file an appeal is insufficient. The High Court held that the authority could not refuse to process a refund arising from an appellate order simply because the appeal period had not expired, as that showed no conscious application of mind and no valid basis under Rule 92(2). The refusal was set aside and the refund claim remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the taxpayer and passing a reasoned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.