Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.