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...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of refund claim - The Tribunal observed that a pre-notice consultation was issued to the appellant, who responded by paying the demanded duty and interest. As the payment was made in response to the consultation, the court found no grounds for further action by the revenue. - The CESTAT rejected the appellant's argument that they had no further responsibility after making the payment. It held that both the revenue and the appellant are bound by Section 28, and the appellant's acceptance of the proposal in the consultation precluded the need for a show cause notice.
Rejection of refund claim - The Tribunal observed that a pre-notice consultation was issued to the appellant, who responded by paying the demanded duty and interest. As the payment was made in response to the consultation, the court found no grounds for further action by the revenue. - The CESTAT rejected the appellant's argument that they had no further responsibility after making the payment. It held that both the revenue and the appellant are bound by Section 28, and the appellant's acceptance of the proposal in the consultation precluded the need for a show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.