Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.