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 ...
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...
Refund claim - amount was paid in GST era under Reverse Charge Mechanism - The Tribunal relied on Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, which states that if any amount becomes recoverable from a person as a result of assessment or adjudication proceedings under the existing law, and unless recovered under the existing law, it shall be recovered as an arrear of tax under the GST Act. - The CESTAT upheld the decision of the lower authorities that the payment made by the appellant was part of a recovery action under the enforcement done by the department. Therefore, the duty, interest, and penalty were paid for an extended period and the refund claim was not admissible.
Refund claim - amount was paid in GST era under Reverse Charge Mechanism - The Tribunal relied on Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, which states that if any amount becomes recoverable from a person as a result of assessment or adjudication proceedings under the existing law, and unless recovered under the existing law, it shall be recovered as an arrear of tax under the GST Act. - The CESTAT upheld the decision of the lower authorities that the payment made by the appellant was part of a recovery action under the enforcement done by the department. Therefore, the duty, interest, and penalty were paid for an extended period and the refund claim was not admissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.