Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Refund of GST paid deposited by the Vendor on advance paid by the appellant since no supply was made - Return/refund of the entire advance amount - The High Court found the order rejecting the refund application to be unreasoned and cryptic, lacking any substantive reasons for the rejection. The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a refund due to the non-supply of goods covered by the agreement and the subsequent recovery of the advance amount. The Court invoked the doctrine of unjust enrichment and restitution, directing the concerned authorities to refund the entire GST amount. - The High Court held that the petitioner's entitlement to a refund was not contingent upon the vendor issuing a credit note. It reasoned that since there was no GST liability on either the petitioner or the vendor, and the GST amount was lying with the authorities, the petitioner should be refunded directly.
Refund of GST paid deposited by the Vendor on advance paid by the appellant since no supply was made - Return/refund of the entire advance amount - The High Court found the order rejecting the refund application to be unreasoned and cryptic, lacking any substantive reasons for the rejection. The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a refund due to the non-supply of goods covered by the agreement and the subsequent recovery of the advance amount. The Court invoked the doctrine of unjust enrichment and restitution, directing the concerned authorities to refund the entire GST amount. - The High Court held that the petitioner's entitlement to a refund was not contingent upon the vendor issuing a credit note. It reasoned that since there was no GST liability on either the petitioner or the vendor, and the GST amount was lying with the authorities, the petitioner should be refunded directly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
