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 High Court addressed the issue of refund of service tax paid in relation to subscription of a chit fund. It was held that the petitioner paid the tax upon demand by tax authorities, not due to a mistake of law. The 2015 amendment to the Finance Act was deemed substantive, not clarificatory, with prospective effect. Refunds for taxes paid before the amendment were permissible within the extended one-year limitation period from the judgment date. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner's failure to apply within the extended time limit set by the court.
The High Court addressed the issue of refund of service tax paid in relation to subscription of a chit fund. It was held that the petitioner paid the tax upon demand by tax authorities, not due to a mistake of law. The 2015 amendment to the Finance Act was deemed substantive, not clarificatory, with prospective effect. Refunds for taxes paid before the amendment were permissible within the extended one-year limitation period from the judgment date. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner's failure to apply within the extended time limit set by the court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
