Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
