Stock-in-trade transfer taxability follows possession and consideration, not later conveyance registration, limiting deemed-value provisions to the ac...
Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
The case involves a dispute over a refund claim (of Cenvat Credit) filed by the appellant beyond the time limit. The Assistant Commissioner stated that the refund was sanctioned earlier, but the appellant did not utilize the remedy u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act within the stipulated time. The communication from the Assistant Commissioner was deemed appealable based on precedent. The appellant's refund claim was filed before the introduction of GST, and the order allowing the refund implied it should be in cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deeming the appeal non-maintainable, and the jurisdictional authorities were directed to implement the refund order in cash u/s 142(3) and 142(6) of the CGST Act. The appeal was allowed.
The case involves a dispute over a refund claim (of Cenvat Credit) filed by the appellant beyond the time limit. The Assistant Commissioner stated that the refund was sanctioned earlier, but the appellant did not utilize the remedy u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act within the stipulated time. The communication from the Assistant Commissioner was deemed appealable based on precedent. The appellant's refund claim was filed before the introduction of GST, and the order allowing the refund implied it should be in cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deeming the appeal non-maintainable, and the jurisdictional authorities were directed to implement the refund order in cash u/s 142(3) and 142(6) of the CGST Act. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
