Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
