Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The Telangana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery...
Refund: HC noted the argument that once an order is passed u/s 54, it can only be annulled in appeal or revision. No coercive action till next hearing.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The Telangana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund due to a misclassification of the supply of a solar power generating system. The petitioner argued that an order under u/s 54 of the CGST Act can only be annulled through an appeal u/s 107 or revision u/s 108. Citing a precedent, the court held that unless the Annexure-I certificate is cancelled following the procedure u/r 35E, invoking u/s 11A is impermissible. The court noted the submissions that the show cause notices as without jurisdiction and ordered no coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing scheduled for 22.07.2024.
The Telangana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund due to a misclassification of the supply of a solar power generating system. The petitioner argued that an order under u/s 54 of the CGST Act can only be annulled through an appeal u/s 107 or revision u/s 108. Citing a precedent, the court held that unless the Annexure-I certificate is cancelled following the procedure u/r 35E, invoking u/s 11A is impermissible. The court noted the submissions that the show cause notices as without jurisdiction and ordered no coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing scheduled for 22.07.2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
