Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism under the erstwhile law. The issue was the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The tribunal held that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 allows refund claims under the previous laws to be processed as per existing laws. The appellant's right to refund under the erstwhile legislation was upheld, citing a precedent that transitional credit is a vested right. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed legally invalid, and the impugned order was set aside with the appeal allowed.
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism under the erstwhile law. The issue was the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The tribunal held that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 allows refund claims under the previous laws to be processed as per existing laws. The appellant's right to refund under the erstwhile legislation was upheld, citing a precedent that transitional credit is a vested right. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed legally invalid, and the impugned order was set aside with the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
