Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
