Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) on zero-rated supplies. The only ground for denying refund by the appellate authority was that no balance was available in the electronic credit ledger when the petitioners became entitled to the refund, as the carried forward CENVAT credit from the earlier regime was approved later. This would be contrary to Section 140(1) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the orders denying refund were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) on zero-rated supplies. The only ground for denying refund by the appellate authority was that no balance was available in the electronic credit ledger when the petitioners became entitled to the refund, as the carried forward CENVAT credit from the earlier regime was approved later. This would be contrary to Section 140(1) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the orders denying refund were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
