Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For an SEZ unit claiming refund of service tax on input services used for authorised operations, the SEZ Act's exemption scheme prevails over service tax notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal applied the settled position that section 26 of the SEZ Act and the SEZ Rules govern the exemption, and that inconsistent notification-based restrictions cannot be imposed on SEZ refunds. Accordingly, the one-year limitation in the service tax notifications was held inapplicable, the rejection as time-barred was set aside, and the refund appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
For an SEZ unit claiming refund of service tax on input services used for authorised operations, the SEZ Act's exemption scheme prevails over service tax notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal applied the settled position that section 26 of the SEZ Act and the SEZ Rules govern the exemption, and that inconsistent notification-based restrictions cannot be imposed on SEZ refunds. Accordingly, the one-year limitation in the service tax notifications was held inapplicable, the rejection as time-barred was set aside, and the refund appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
