Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
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 4888 
