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 of the unutilized ITC of GST Compensation Cess on coal - zero rated supply - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Vires of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No. 53/2023 – The court held that the notification’s Clause 5 is clear in its stipulation that no appeal can be filed for issues not involving tax. The court found no grounds to challenge the clause’s constitutional validity. - The court determined that the order was indeed communicated when uploaded on the portal, thus initiating the statutory period for filing appeals. It rejected the petitioner’s claim that the physical receipt of the order marked the start of the appeal period.
Refund of the unutilized ITC of GST Compensation Cess on coal - zero rated supply - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Vires of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No. 53/2023 – The court held that the notification’s Clause 5 is clear in its stipulation that no appeal can be filed for issues not involving tax. The court found no grounds to challenge the clause’s constitutional validity. - The court determined that the order was indeed communicated when uploaded on the portal, thus initiating the statutory period for filing appeals. It rejected the petitioner’s claim that the physical receipt of the order marked the start of the appeal period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.