Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- under Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, against which Respondents recovered Rs. 19,16,74,501/-, resulting in excess collection of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Respondents adjusted Petitioner's refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for 2011-2012 against non-existent demand for 2010-2011, without authority. Defect notice u/s 11 of Settlement Scheme was contrary to law as Petitioner made excess payment, not shortfall. Section 18 of Settlement Scheme, prohibiting refund, is inapplicable as Petitioner seeks refund of 2011-2012, not amount paid under Settlement Scheme. HC directed Respondents to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with 6% interest from 1st June 2019 till payment date u/s 52 read with Rule 88 of MVAT Rules.
Petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- under Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, against which Respondents recovered Rs. 19,16,74,501/-, resulting in excess collection of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Respondents adjusted Petitioner's refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for 2011-2012 against non-existent demand for 2010-2011, without authority. Defect notice u/s 11 of Settlement Scheme was contrary to law as Petitioner made excess payment, not shortfall. Section 18 of Settlement Scheme, prohibiting refund, is inapplicable as Petitioner seeks refund of 2011-2012, not amount paid under Settlement Scheme. HC directed Respondents to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with 6% interest from 1st June 2019 till payment date u/s 52 read with Rule 88 of MVAT Rules.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
