Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim for service tax under section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for refund claim was the date of Order-In-Original, not payment date. No service tax liability existed, so no short payment occurred. Appellant's deposit remained unappropriated against tax liability. Citing Hon'ble Madras High Court decision, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as refund claim was timely filed.
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim for service tax under section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for refund claim was the date of Order-In-Original, not payment date. No service tax liability existed, so no short payment occurred. Appellant's deposit remained unappropriated against tax liability. Citing Hon'ble Madras High Court decision, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as refund claim was timely filed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
