Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
The Supreme Court ruled on the refund of Stamp Duty for an un-executed conveyance deed u/s 47 (c) of the Act and Rules 21, 22A of Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The appellant diligently pursued legal remedies and was denied refund on grounds of limitation. Evidence is not required with the application for refund u/s 47. The legal principle from THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. was cited, emphasizing that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The appellant's case warranted a refund as the expiry of limitation does not bar the right to claim refund. The appellant acted in good faith but was deceived by the Vendor, leading to the cancellation of the deed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The Supreme Court ruled on the refund of Stamp Duty for an un-executed conveyance deed u/s 47 (c) of the Act and Rules 21, 22A of Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The appellant diligently pursued legal remedies and was denied refund on grounds of limitation. Evidence is not required with the application for refund u/s 47. The legal principle from THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. was cited, emphasizing that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The appellant's case warranted a refund as the expiry of limitation does not bar the right to claim refund. The appellant acted in good faith but was deceived by the Vendor, leading to the cancellation of the deed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
