Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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.