Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
